From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Freddy S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 5197.

May 31, 2011.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert R. Reed, J., at suppression motion; Nancy M. Bannon, J., at disposition), entered on or about February 5, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute possession of an imitation firearm, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for presentment agency.

Before: Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


The court properly denied appellant's suppression motion. There was probable cause for appellant's arrest, based on far more than an anonymous call. The police responded to a radio call stating that shots had just been fired by a described suspect in a park. When the police arrived at the park immediately thereafter, they saw appellant, who met the description. The officers observed that appellant's companions were warning him of the presence of police. At that point, appellant took a series of evasive actions in an obvious effort to hide from the officers, and then fled as the officers approached. The police observations were sufficiently suggestive of the reported criminal activity to provide the requisite corroboration ( see People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 234-235).

The police lawfully searched appellant's backpack as incident to a lawful arrest ( see People v Smith, 59 NY2d 454; People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247, lv denied 91 NY2d 946; compare People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309). The arrest and search were contemporaneous, the police had information that appellant had just fired shots, the backpack remained in appellant's grabbable area, the backpack had not been reduced to the exclusive control of the police, and the setting was a crowded park. Under all these circumstances, the police were clearly justified in inspecting the backpack for their own safety and that of the public.


Summaries of

In re Freddy S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In re Freddy S

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FREDDY S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

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

Date published: May 31, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4517
924 N.Y.S.2d 348

Citing Cases

People v. Adams

Several courts have found that an exigency existed where, in addition to concern about a weapon, the bag has…

People v. Miranda

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The police lawfully searched defendant's backpack as…