From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gamble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1994
210 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 23, 1994

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was burglarizing a food market when he observed police officers responding to a burglar alarm. He fled on foot. Minutes later, a third officer observed defendant, who matched the detailed description broadcast by police radio, crouched down behind a patio partition at an apartment complex. That officer apprehended defendant and immediately conducted a patdown frisk. The officer felt a hard object in defendant's back pocket and, upon ascertaining that the object was a roll of coins, put the object back in defendant's pocket. He then escorted defendant to a police car, intending to transport defendant to the crime scene for a showup identification by the officers who responded to the alarm. Those officers instead arrived at the apprehension scene within minutes and identified defendant as the perpetrator.

Defendant concedes that the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime and were justified in detaining him for a showup identification. He does not contend that he was under arrest at that time. His sole contention is that, because the police officer had no reason to believe that defendant was armed or to fear for his safety, the frisk was not justified. We reject that contention. Where a sufficient basis for detention exists, an officer may conduct a patdown frisk as a routine safety measure preliminary to transporting a suspect in a police vehicle for a showup identification (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Smith, 138 A.D.2d 972, affd 73 N.Y.2d 961; People v Sansalone, 197 A.D.2d 549; see also, Matter of D'Angelo H., 184 A.D.2d 1039, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 758; People v Kinsella, 139 A.D.2d 909, 911). Here, defendant was frisked at a time when the officer believed that defendant would be transported for a showup identification; that frisk was justified even though subsequent events rendered transportation for a showup unnecessary.


Summaries of

People v. Gamble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1994
210 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Gamble

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE GAMBLE…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 655

Citing Cases

People v. Rosa

In the absence of reasonable suspicion, it cannot be said that the pat down of defendant was a permissible…