3300-3302. PEOPLE, res, v. HAYWOOD HINTON, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Hunter Haney of counsel), for ap — HAYWOOD HINTON, APPELLANT PRO SE. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O’Shea of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J. at dismissal motion; Patricia M. Nuez, J. at suppression hearing; Juan M. Merchan, J. at jury trial, sentencing and resentencing), rendered November 6, 2014, as amended February 9, 2016, convicting defendant of 17 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to 17 concurrent terms of 1 to 4 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendant’s motion to suppress the 15 counterfeit bills recovered from his shoulder bag and dismissing counts 3 through 17 of the indictment, and otherwise affirmed, and order, same court (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2015, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
The hearing court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the 15 counterfeit bills recovered from his shoulder bag. The bag was searched incident to defendant’s arrest at a time when he was in handcuffs and five police officers were standing close to him. The officer who testified at defendant’s suppression hearing stated that both defendant and the shoulder bag were “secured.” The officer did not state that defendant was uncooperative or that he posed any sort of threat; indeed, officers had pursued defendant based only on their suspicion that he had committed the nonviolent offense of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree. The record contains no testimony or other evidence suggesting that defendant was attempting to access, let alone destroy, the contents of his shoulder bag. Under these circumstances, we find that there was no issue of police or public safety nor any risk of destruction of evidence and therefore, no exigency, to justify the warrantless search of defendant’s shoulder bag incident to his arrest (see People v. Jimenez, 22 NY3d 717, 722-723 [2014]; People v. Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 313-314 [1983]). Accordingly, we grant defendant’s motion to suppress the bills recovered from his shoulder bag.
