Opinion
4229 Ind. 4106/14
04-24-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Troy SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel) and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Alejandra Ávila of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel) and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Alejandra Ávila of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Richter, Webber, JJ.,
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at suppression hearing; Neil E. Ross, J. at plea, sentencing and determination upon remand), rendered May 20, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.
On his initial appeal ( 151 A.D.3d 628, 58 N.Y.S.3d 329 [1st Dept. 2017] ), defendant argued that the hearing court improperly denied his suppression motion on the ground that the officer recovered a gravity knife from him based on a "search incident to arrest." The People contended otherwise, and also argued, in the alternative, as they did at the suppression hearing, that the officer's act of taking the knife from defendant's pocket, where the handle of the knife and its clip were in plain view, was permissible as a self-protective minimal intrusion. We held that the court erred in denying the motion on the incident-to-arrest ground, but held the appeal in abeyance and remanded the matter for a determination on the People's alternative argument, as we could not reach it under CPL 470.15(1).
On remand, the court properly concluded that the officer's retrieval of the knife from defendant's pocket was permissible as a self-protective minimal intrusion under the principle articulated in People v. Miranda, 19 N.Y.3d 912, 950 N.Y.S.2d 615, 974 N.E.2d 661 (2012). As this Court has already determined, the officer was conducting a lawful stop at the time he observed the knife. Based on his training, the officer could reasonably conclude that the clip and handle, which were protruding from defendant's pocket and plainly visible, signified the presence of some kind of knife. Given that a complainant, who had injuries on his face, had just informed the officer that defendant had recently assaulted him, the officer had a reasonable basis to fear for his safety. Accordingly, the officer's retrieval of the knife was proper (see People v. Randall, 143 A.D.3d 411, 38 N.Y.S.3d 545 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1149, 52 N.Y.S.3d 301, 74 N.E.3d 686 [2017] ; People v. Terrance, 101 A.D.3d 624, 625, 957 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1065, 962 N.Y.S.2d 616, 985 N.E.2d 926 [2013] ).