From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chappell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 1994
201 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested pursuant to a so-called "buy and bust" operation conducted by an undercover officer, who consummated the purchase from him and an accomplice. The defendant contends that the hearing court erred when it failed to suppress, among other things, a beeper, $30 in prerecorded money, and an additional $14 in currency recovered from his person, inasmuch as the People failed to produce at the Mapp hearing any of the officers who had briefly detained him before a detective ultimately arrested and searched him. We find that these contentions are without merit. Assuming arguendo that the brief detention of the defendant by several members of the field team was improper, the evidence ultimately obtained from the defendant's person was not the fruit of that detention. Rather, the evidence in question was recovered from the defendant pursuant to the arrest and search effectuated by the arresting detective, who had independent probable cause to do so, based on the content of the radio transmissions he had received from the undercover officer both immediately after the sale and as he made his way toward the defendant a few minutes later (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106; see, e.g, People v. Woodward, 127 A.D.2d 929, 930-931). Accordingly, the failure of the People to produce any of the "detaining" officers at the hearing did not warrant suppression of the items recovered from him pursuant to the search conducted by the arresting detective (see, e.g., People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; see also, People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 415; People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 135).

The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Chappell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 1994
201 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Chappell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY CHAPPELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 7, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 373

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

The court based its ruling on the People's failure to produce at the hearing any of the Housing Police…

People v. Smoot

We conclude that the conduct of both officers was at all times lawful. We therefore need not decide whether…