NY: Search of a metal box after arrest on entry on exigency was excessive

Police entered into a house on exigent circumstances after gunshots and arrested everybody. A search of a metal box after everybody was handcuffed and under control was unreasonable because the exigency had abated. People v. Jenkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 07007, 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 2822 (October 16, 2014):

In this instance, the People failed to meet that burden. There is no record support for the Appellate Division’s conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the search of the closed box. The search was unreasonable as a matter of law because, by the time Officer Brennan opened the box, any urgency justifying the warrantless search had abated. The officers had handcuffed the men and removed them to the living room where they (and the two women) remained under police supervision. At the time Officer Brennan searched the box and discovered the gun, the police “were in complete control of the house” and “[a]ll occupants were out of commission” (Knapp, 52 NY2d at 696-697). At that point, contrary to the People’s contention, there was no danger that defendant would dispose of or destroy the weapon (see In re T., 43 NY2d at 220), nor was there any danger to the public or the police (see Knapp, 52 NY2d at 697). Absent the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement, such as a search incident to arrest or the gun being in plain view (see People v Ciccarelli, 161 AD2d 952, 953, 557 N.Y.S.2d 525 [3d Dept 1990]),2 the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to searching the box.