Law360 (June 5, 2026, 10:04 PM EDT) -- A man sentenced to 16 years in prison had his guilty plea for drug and gun charges vacated after a New York state appeals court found that a trooper who searched his jacket pocket and discovered a gun had no right to frisk him in this manner.
In a unanimous
opinion issued Thursday, a five-judge panel said there was reasonable suspicion for a trooper to search after smelling marijuana during a traffic stop and being told by driver Braeden Roberts that Roberts hadn't been using the substance. However, the appeals court said that the search should have been limited to what the trooper saw in plain view, such as a small gold container in the vehicle's center console, and a potential pat down of Roberts' exterior.
Roberts sought to suppress his statements to police and all physical evidence recovered during the traffic stop and a subsequent search of his residence but was denied, the panel said. A county court found that, when the trooper searched Roberts' jacket, it "was justified as a permissible pat-down frisk and as incident to his lawful arrest," according to the opinion.
As a result, Roberts pled guilty but decided to appeal the court's decision not to suppress the evidence against him.
The appeals court said that, while the trooper was entitled to examine the gold container, which was in plain view and yielded a pill, further searching wasn't warranted given the circumstances.
If the officer had any reason to believe Roberts was armed, perhaps a pat down of his jacket exterior might have been constitutional, but the panel said the trooper went straight to searching the jacket pockets without placing Roberts under arrest for anything and without suspecting he was armed.
"Under the circumstances presented here, a more intrusive search inside the pockets and interior of defendant's jacket would have only been justified if, during a lawful pat down of the jacket's exterior, the officer felt an object reasonably believed to be a weapon, or if the search was otherwise conducted incident to a lawful arrest," the panel said.
"Critically, the intent to arrest must relate to the offense purportedly justifying the search, even if the defendant is ultimately arrested for a different offense," the panel added.
The appeals court said it was clear from the record that there was no intent to arrest Roberts until after he had been found to be armed via the illegal search.
"Although the trooper arguably could have arrested defendant for possessing an apparent controlled substance prior to searching him, the trooper's testimony that he had no intent to do so precludes a finding that the search was justified as incident to an arrest," the appeals court explained.
As a result, the results from the search should have been suppressed, the appeals court said, adding that anything that was subsequently discovered also could not be considered.
"As defendant's subsequent statements and the physical evidence seized pursuant to the search warrants naturally flowed from the illegal search of defendant's jacket, they were also subject to suppression as the fruit of the poisonous tree," the appeals court said, reversing the judgment against Roberts and vacating his convictions.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Friday.
Presiding Justice Elizabeth A. Garry and Justices Christine M. Clark, Lisa M. Fisher, L. Michael Mackey and Christina L. Ryba sat on the panel for the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department.
New York is represented by J. Anthony Jordan and Taylor Fitzsimmons of the Washington County District Attorney's Office.
Braeden Roberts is represented by William E. Montgomery III of the Law Offices of William E. Montgomery III.
The case is The People of the State of New York v. Braeden Roberts, case number 113629, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department.
--Editing by Dave Trumbore.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.