Court Opinion

ID: 9802701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 14:45:49.773344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:40.394511
License: Public Domain

Hall, J.,
concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: I concur with my colleagues that the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, but only on constraint of this Court’s precedent in People v Velasquez (110 AD3d 835 [2013]). I write separately to express my view that the police should have obtained a search warrant prior to seizing and searching the gun box located in the common area of the subject building.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, the United States Supreme Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured (see Kentucky v King, 563 US —, —, 131 S Ct 1849, 1856 [2011]; Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 390 [1978]). While I recognize the several exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as “[when] the exigencies of the situation” render a warrantless search objectively reasonable (Mincey v Arizona, 437 US at 394 [internal quotation marks omitted]), I fear that the exceptions to the warrant requirement have swallowed the rule.
In my view, the police should have obtained a warrant prior to seizing and opening the gun box in the common area of the subject building (see People v McLawrence, 114 AD3d 964 [2014]). There was no emergency or exigent circumstances to justify the search and seizure of the gun box without first obtaining a warrant. The defendant was already under arrest at the time the gun box was searched, and no clear threat to public safety was present. If the police perceived any danger by leaving the gun box in the common area of the building, the police could have secured the area while obtaining a properly executed search warrant. Thus, while I concur in the result reached *514herein with respect to the suppression of physical evidence, I do so only on constraint of this Court’s precedent.
I agree with all other determinations made by the majority.