COURT: STRIP SEARCH WRONG

ALBANY - A state appeals court has unanimously reversed the 2007
conviction of a man found with cocaine in his buttocks, finding
Schenectady police wrongly strip searched him before his arrest.
Jonathan Gonzalez was arrested after he allegedly approached a wired
informant and asked, "What do you need? I can get you whatever you
need."

Gonzalez was taken to a police station, where he was required to
disrobe for a body cavity search. He was "repeatedly ordered to bend
over and spread the cheeks of his buttocks," the Appellate Division
ruling stated. After Gonzalez eventually agreed, investigators
"spotted a small plastic bag, later determined to contain cocaine,
protruding out of his rectum," the ruling stated.

After a judge allowed the cocaine evidence into his trial, Gonzalez
was convicted of two drug possession counts in January 2007. He was
sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison and another two years
post-release supervision.

The Appellate Division reversed the conviction in its decisions
released Wednesday, finding no specific basis supporting a reasonable
suspicion for making the cavity search.

The midlevel court's ruling said police were "not justified" in
conducting the cavity inspection and the evidence should have been
tossed from the case.

The ruling said Gonzalez's statements "may have been indicative of his
involvement in the drug trade," but added, "his representation that he
could 'get you whatever you need' was vague as to whether he actually
possessed narcotics at the time and did not provide a specific,
articulable basis to prompt the visual cavity inspection."

In another decision, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed a
lower court's decision that would have blocked cocaine evidence from
another Schenectady case, this one involving a traffic stop and police
dog.

The defendant, Damien Devone, was a front-seat passenger in a car when
the driver, identified as Troy Washington, was spotted by Schenectady
and State Police talking on a cellphone, the ruling stated.

After they pulled the car over, a state trooper discovered Washington
did not have his license, could not produce registration or explain
where he was headed. Washington allegedly said the car was registered
to his cousin - yet did not know the cousin's name. When asked about
the whereabouts of the cousin, Washington then pointed to Devone, the
ruling stated.

A police computer search revealed the car was not registered to
Devone, though it was not reported stolen, either. Still, the "evasive
and incorrect answers to routine questions" led the investigators to
have the police dog walk around the car, the ruling stated.

It resulted in "an alert by the dog for the presence of narcotics in
the car," the ruling stated. When the trooper opened the door and the
dog scratched at an armrest console, police found cocaine, the
decision stated.

Washington and Devone tried to get the drug evidence blocked, arguing
they were unlawfully searched. While a lower court agreed, the
Appellate Division has allowed the evidence into the case.

"In light of the diminished expectation of privacy in a car as opposed
to a home and the fact that 'a canine sniff' is far less intrusive
than a full-blown search," the ruling stated, "we find that the
presence of a founded suspicion is sufficient to permit a canine sniff
of the exterior of a car that has been lawfully stopped and not
unreasonably delayed."