## Facts

- A police officer, without a warrant, arrested John Defore in the hallway of his boarding house on suspicion of stealing an overcoat (petit larceny, a misdemeanor).
- After the arrest, the officer entered Defore’s room and conducted a warrantless search.
- The officer found a bag containing a blackjack (and a hat).
- Defore was acquitted of the larceny charge but was indicted as a second offender for unlawful possession of a weapon under New York Penal Law § 1897.
- Defore moved to suppress the blackjack as the product of an unlawful search; the motion was denied, and the trial court admitted the blackjack over objection.
- Defore was convicted; the Appellate Division affirmed, and Defore appealed, asserting violations of state protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination, and a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence obtained through an unlawful, warrantless search must be excluded in a New York criminal prosecution.
2. Whether admission of the evidence violated (a) New York’s statutory protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, (b) the state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, or (c) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court concluded the arrest and ensuing search were unlawful and unreasonable because there was no lawful misdemeanor arrest without a warrant to which a search could be incident.
- Despite the illegality, the blackjack was admissible; New York declined to impose an exclusionary rule based solely on unlawful search or seizure.
- Admission of the physical evidence did not constitute compelled self-incrimination.
- Admission of the evidence did not deny due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law at the time, evidence is not rendered incompetent solely because it was obtained through an unlawful search or seizure.
- A warrantless misdemeanor arrest is unlawful unless the misdemeanor is committed or attempted in the officer’s presence; a search incident to arrest requires a lawful arrest.
- The contraband character of an item does not justify a warrantless search of a home; it may affect seizure or retention after discovery but does not validate the initial search.
- The privilege against self-incrimination protects against compelled testimonial evidence; seizure of physical evidence through a search is not, by itself, compelled testimony.
- The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause did not, at that time, require states to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that although the officer’s warrantless arrest and search were unlawful, the resulting physical evidence was admissible in a New York prosecution, and its admission did not violate state protections against unreasonable searches and seizures or self-incrimination, nor federal due process.


People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13 (N.Y. 1926)