From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Darnel B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Schechter, J.).


Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record reveals that the arresting police officer approached the appellant, who was leaning against the wall of the lobby in an apartment building that was part of a housing project. The officer asked the appellant whether he lived in the building, and the appellant replied that he did not. The officer then asked the appellant, who appeared nervous, what he was doing, to which the appellant replied that he was "just chilling". The officer then arrested the appellant for criminal trespass. The appellant contends, inter alia, that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. We disagree.

Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction, but merely information which would lead a reasonable person who possesses the same expertise as the officer to conclude, under the circumstances, that a crime is being or was committed ( see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417).

Here, the record supports the conclusion that the arresting officer possessed probable cause to believe that the appellant was unlawfully on the premises ( see, Penal Law § 140.00). The appellant stated that he was not a resident in the building. Moreover, when given the opportunity to explain why he was present, the appellant at no point indicated that he was present with a tenant's permission or for some other lawful purpose. To the contrary, he informed the arresting officer that he was "just chilling". The arresting officer could reasonably construe the appellant's statement as negating any inference that he enjoyed a license or privilege to be present on the premises ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 201). Accordingly, the arrest was lawful since the officer possessed probable cause to believe that the appellant was on the premises illegally.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Darnel B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Darnel B

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 199

Citing Cases

People v. Bazile

( In re Daniel B, 2 AD3d 440, 441 [2d Dept 2003]; People v Taveras, 2007 NY Slip Op 52067U, 6 [Crim Ct New…

People v. Vasquez

At that point, the officer justifiably exercised her common-law right to inquire ( see People v. De Bour, 40…