NEW YORK CITY, NY –
An appeals court has vacated two robbery-related convictions in Queens after finding that a police officer crossed a constitutional line by reaching into a suspect’s pants pocket after officers had already secured a box cutter and handcuffed him.
The ruling does not clear Dajohn Sanchez of every count. His conviction for criminal possession of a weapon remains in place. The Appellate Division, Second Department, ordered a new trial on first-degree robbery and criminal possession of stolen property.
According to the court record, a man reported that an assailant displayed a weapon, took his purse and ran. Police officers encountered Sanchez nearby, and the complainant identified him during a street show-up.
Officers said Sanchez matched the description and ran when they approached. During the pursuit, he held a box cutter. After a struggle, officers removed the blade, handcuffed him and conducted a frisk.
The appellate panel found that the stop and frisk were justified because the officers had reason to believe Sanchez was armed and dangerous. The problem came next.
An officer reached into Sanchez’s pants pocket and removed the complainant’s driver license. The record contained no testimony that the officer felt a weapon or any object that posed a danger before entering the pocket.
That distinction controlled the appeal. A protective frisk is limited to locating weapons. Once police go inside clothing to retrieve an item, the prosecution must justify the more intrusive search under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
The court concluded that prosecutors did not meet that burden. The driver license should have been suppressed.
The panel also found that the error was not harmless. The license was crucial physical evidence linking Sanchez to the reported robbery. Without it, the prosecution’s case on the robbery and stolen-property counts was materially different.
The court left the weapon count intact because the box cutter was recovered during the confrontation, before the unlawful pocket search. It also upheld the complainant’s show-up identification, finding that the procedure was not unduly suggestive.
The decision sends the robbery case back to Queens Supreme Court. Prosecutors may retry Sanchez on the vacated counts, but they cannot use the suppressed driver license.
The ruling matters beyond one prosecution. It reinforces that an officer’s authority to conduct a safety frisk is not a general license to search for evidence. The legal boundary turns on why the officer entered the pocket and what the officer reasonably believed was there.
Unanswered questions remain, including whether Queens prosecutors will proceed with a new trial and what evidence they can present without the license. The case will now return to the trial court under the appellate order.
Sources
New York Law Reporting Bureau, People v Sanchez (2026 NY Slip Op 06146)
Leave a Reply