The threshold issue in any claim of false arrest, is whether the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff.  That is, a person’s confinement is otherwise “privileged” when probable cause exists to arrest him. Covington v. City of New York, 171 F.3d 117, 122 (2d Cir. 1999).  The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the arrest was justified based upon probable cause.  Raysor v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 768 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1985).  To meet this burden, however, the defendant must demonstrate evidence which amounts to “more than a rumor, suspicion, or even a strong reason to suspect.”  United States v. Fisher, 702 F.2d 372, 375 (2d Cir. 1983) [emphasis added].  Moreover, the evidence of guilt must be particularized to the individual being arrested.  See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979).

 The fact that a client was arrested pursuant to the execution of a search warrant is not determinative on the issue of probable cause.  Barr v. County of Albany, 50 N.Y.2d 247, 255 (1980) (“while it can be said that a search warrant sanctions the entrance by law enforcement officers upon private property to conduct a search within the confines of the warrant, it by no means lends judicial approval to the arrests of those persons found thereon”).  That is, a search warrant does not authorize an arrest.  Id.  In Barr, the police executed a search warrant of a premise and arrested virtually all fifty persons present for marijuana possession.  The charges were dismissed against plaintiffs and they brought  subsequent claims for false arrest.  The court denied defendant’s motions for summary judgment holding that the search warrant did not immunize the officers for liability for false arrest.  Id.

 In Ybarra v Illinois, 444 U.S. at 85, the police obtained a warrant to search a tavern where the bartender was suspected of drug activity.  While executing the warrant, the police conducted pat-down searches of the tavern patrons, including Ybarra.  The police found drugs on Ybarra and arrested him.  The Court held that a “person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.” Id. at 91; citing, Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62-63 (1968) [emphasis added]. 

 Likewise, in Flores v. City of Mount Vernon, the police officers executed a search warrant at a bar where the tavern owner was reportedly selling drugs.  41 F. Supp 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).  The police found certain patrons in possession of cocaine at the tavern.  One of these patrons was seen picking up a packet of what appeared to be cocaine from the bar.  The officers observed another patron dropping a packet of cocaine on the floor.  More cocaine and marijuana was found hidden in the basement of the establishment.  In addition to the patrons, the police arrested the bartender, Flores, who was present and working at the time the warrant was executed.  Ultimately, Ms. Flores was not charged and brought a claim of false arrest against the officers and municipality.  The Court found that the fact that half the patrons in the bar possessed cocaine did “not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that [Flores] was involved in drug activity, let alone rise to the level of probable cause”.  Id. at 443 [emphasis added].  Further, the fact that patrons dropped narcotics to the floor in plain view did “not admit the inference” that they obtained them from plaintiff. Id. at 444. 

 In Flores, the arrest occurred in a public forum.  What if your client was arrested in a private residence?  Assume your client was an invited guest watching television when the police executed a search warrant targeting the owner of the apartment.  The drugs found in the apartment were not in plain view and were not in proximity to your client.  Your client was not a resident of the apartment and there was nothing connecting him to the apartment.  Nor was there anything about his conduct which indicated a common scheme with the other occupants of the apartment. There is an argument to be made that the circumstances of Flores (cocaine literally flying in the air in the proximity of claimant) were far more egregious than those described above.      

 Pursuant to applicable New York search and seizure law, one may argue there was no probable cause for the police officers to arrest your client.  It is not alleged that your client directly possessed drugs.  The only remaining means to assert his “possession” are (i) the application of a “room presumption”; or (ii) the theory that he “constructively” possessed the drugs.  Since the alleged contraband was not in “plain view” the police were not permitted to arrest all the occupants based upon a permissive “room presumption”.  See, N.Y. Pen. L. 220.25(2) (the presence of a narcotic drug in “open view in a room other than a public place . . . is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in close proximity” to the drugs) [emphasis added]; see, e.g., People v. Martinez, 83 N.Y.2d 26 (1993) (drugs concealed between a couch and a wall are not in plain view).  Furthermore, it can not reasonably be argued that your client “constructively possessed” the drugs hidden in the apartment.  To demonstrate constructive possession it must be shown that a person exercised “dominion or control” over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found.  See, e.g., People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561 (1992).  There is no evidence that your client resided in the location; had keys to the location; or had any personal property in the location.  Further, since the evidence will likely show that other persons had access to the location and the drugs were hidden, a viable theory of constructive possession will not stand.  People v. Vasquez, 160 A.D.2d 751 (2d Dept. 1990) (constructive possession not established where defendant was watching television in the living room of an apartment where 4 ounces of cocaine and $150,000 in cash were discovered in a bedroom pursuant to a search warrant, despite the defendant having a loose key to the apartment in her possession); People v. Webb, 179 A.D.2d 707 (2d Dept. 1992); People v. Bailey, 159 A.D.2d 1009 (4^th Dept. 1990). 

 Based upon the foregoing, one can certainly make a viable argument that the search warrant and discovery of contraband does not confer probable cause to arrest a visitor on the circumstances described.  Still, it may not be a winning argument and one will find far stronger footing in a False Arrest claim if the “unlawful” arrest took place in a public, rather than private, forum.

Pro Boxer Edgar Santana Busted As Part Of Alleged Major Cocaine Ring

By Teri Thompson, Michael O’Keeffe And Nathaniel Vinton
Daily News Sports Writers

Updated Friday, July 18th 2008, 4:58 PM
(Originally published on July 18 at 10:12 a.m.)

Edgar Santana, the junior welterweight boxer often billed as “The Pride of Spanish Harlem,” was arrested Friday as part of an alleged international cocaine distribution ring busted by the New York Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor and the New York Office of the DEA.

Santana, 29, was picked up at his home at the George Washington Carver Houses on 102nd St. in Spanish Harlem in the early morning hours Friday. Friends and acquaintances were stunned.

“Everybody has been blindsided by this whole thing because it’s just not something that you would think Edgar could be involved in,” said Ernesto Dallas, Santana’s manager for the last six years.

Santana and seven other alleged co-conspirators were led out of a DEA office building in lower Manhattan Friday just after noon and taken to New York State Supreme Court. They are expected to be arraigned on Monday on second-degree criminal conspiracy and first-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance.

His arms handcuffed behind him, a grim Santana, who is scheduled to fight in an ESPN-televised match on Aug. 6, said nothing as DEA agents led him to a waiting car. On his black T-shirt was the following slogan in yellow letters: “The pressure of survival in the big city will make you lose sight of your dream…hang in there – de la Vega.”

James de la Vega, the Spanish Harlem artist who designed the T-shirt, was shocked by the news. “He’s a huge symbol of pride in Spanish Harlem,” de la Vega told the Daily News. “I’ve walked down the streets with him in the neighborhood and people love him everywhere. … He’s a friend of mine. We have a lot of love and respect for him here.”

The investigation, known as “Operation Special Delivery,” was the result of a cooperative effort by the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, in conjunction with the DEA and the the New York Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force, which is composed of agents from the NYPD, the IRS, the Homeland Security and the FBI, among other agencies.

Agents arrested 12 individuals and recovered $450,000 and at least a kilogram of cocaine in the one-year investigation into a plot to mail cocaine from Santana’s native Puerto Rico to addresses in Manhattan and the Bronx, according to the DEA.

Santana, according to investigators, brokered a deal on behalf of ringleader Angel Colon, and is accused of selling a kilogram of cocaine. Because the case originated with the Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s office, it will be prosecuted in New York state court.

“This organization abused the U.S. Postal Service and used packages to smuggle illicit goods into our country,” said New York DEA special agent in charge, John P. Gilbride. “This shows the lengths drug distribution organizations will go to achieve their goal, but they will not be successful, and will face the consequences of their actions as today’s arrests demonstrate.”

A headline attraction in promoter Lou DiBella’s Broadway Boxing Series, Santana was out of boxing briefly, working as a barber in Spanish Harlem, before making a comeback.

Santana, whose record is 24-3 with 15 knockouts, last fought in April, when he won a 10-round decision over Josesito Lopez in Miami on April 11.

Contacted by the Daily News Friday, DiBella was shocked that Santana had been arrested.

“This is completely out of character for him. He was close to everybody in our office,” the promoter said. “My staff is sick about this. He was just talking about opening a barbershop. I’m hoping this is a mistake. But obviously if he’s done something against the law, he’s going to have to pay,” DiBella said.

Santana began his career in a gym in Spanish Harlem and then moved to the reknowned Gleason’s Gym in Brooklyn, where he worked with Hector Rocca, who helped train Hilary Swank in Clint Eastwood’s Academy Award-winning drama “Million Dollar Baby.”

Dallas, Santana’s current trainer, was with Santana the night before the arrest and said there was nothing in the young boxer’s demeanor to suggest trouble on the horizon.

“In our conversations there were only two things on his mind lately and that was continuing to move up in boxing and getting his barbershop started,” Dallas said. “We were looking at the lease for a place for the barbershop and working out the final plans for the place. He was getting that off the ground. I was with him until 8:30 last night and there was nothing in his demeanor that would indicate anything like this was happening.”

In a 2005 interview for the boxing Web site Doghouse Boxing, Santana talked about what a blessing it was to find boxing as a youngster growing up in dangerous circumstances.

“When I started boxing, I went with seven of my friends to Mickey Rosario’s gym in Spanish Harlem,” Santana recalled. “I remember he told us, out of all seven of us, only one or two of us were going to make it. He said the rest would go into a life of drugs or end up getting killed.

“Looking back, I’m the only one left. Everyone else is either in jail or is getting killed.”

Source: New York Daily News

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers