Opinion
2014-01-22
In the Matter of DENZIL B. (Anonymous), appellant.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (McElrath, J.), dated December 19, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 28, 2012, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted a violation of section 10–131(g)(1) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York which prohibits the possession of an imitation firearm, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation until February 4, 2014. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the appellant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made to law enforcement personnel.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that there was a lawful basis to stop and detain the appellant as a suspected truant ( see Education Law § 3213[2]; Matter of Shannon B., 70 N.Y.2d 458, 522 N.Y.S.2d 488, 517 N.E.2d 203; Matter of Kennedy T., 39 A.D.3d 408, 835 N.Y.S.2d 85; Matter of D'Angelo H., 184 A.D.2d 1039, 1040, 584 N.Y.S.2d 699; Matter of Devon B., 158 A.D.2d 519, 520, 551 N.Y.S.2d 283), and the officer's pat down of the book bag which the appellant was wearing was reasonable under the circumstances ( see Matter of Deshaun G., 88 A.D.3d 707, 708, 930 N.Y.S.2d 881; Matter of Bernard G., 247 A.D.2d 91, 93, 679 N.Y.S.2d 104; Matter of D'Angelo H., 184 A.D.2d at 1040, 584 N.Y.S.2d 699; Matter of Mark Anthony G., 169 A.D.2d 89, 92–93, 571 N.Y.S.2d 481). The evidence further established that, as a result of the pat down, the officer was justified in searching the contents of the book bag ( see Matter of Marrhonda G., 81 N.Y.2d 942, 597 N.Y.S.2d 662, 613 N.E.2d 568; Matter of Jakwon, R., 110 A.D.3d 723, 725, 973 N.Y.S.2d 228; see also Matter of Mark Anthony G., 169 A.D.2d at 93, 571 N.Y.S.2d 481).
The Family Court also properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements which he made to law enforcement personnel. The record is clear that the subject statements were spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent ( see People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862; People v. Roper, 208 A.D.2d 571, 617 N.Y.S.2d 44). DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.