From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Espala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.).


Defendant's motions to suppress identification and physical evidence were properly denied. Of defendant's present claims regarding undue suggestiveness in the conduct of the showup identification, only that based upon the fact he was handcuffed at the time of the identification was raised before the hearing court and thus, the remaining contentions are unpreserved (CPL 470.05). In any event, under the circumstances, the showup identification procedure did not create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be misidentified. That defendant was seen handcuffed and standing close to police officers did not render the showup infirm, given the temporal and spatial proximity of the showup to the crimes ( see, People v Bitz, 209 A.D.2d 709, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 859). Defendant's arrest did not make the subsequent showup unnecessary ( see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). Showup identifications are permissible if the suspects are captured at or near the crime and can be viewed promptly by the witnesses ( see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v Cortez, 221 A.D.2d 255, 256).

The seizure of defendant's person and the weapon was lawful. The police officers heard gunshots and observed defendant jump in a car, pointed out by onlookers, which car then ran a red light and swerved into the opposing lane of traffic. This gave rise to reasonable suspicion to stop the car and detain defendant and the driver ( see, People v Blackwell, 206 A.D.2d 300, appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 851). Under these circumstances, the action of the police officer in reaching under defendant's seat, as defendant was still seated in the car, did not rise to the level of an unreasonable intrusion. It was a lawful search based on the reasonable belief that defendant was armed and posed a threat to the police officers' safety ( see, People v Jackson, 79 N.Y.2d 907; People v Harris, 160 A.D.2d 515, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 789).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Espala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Espala

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN ESPALA, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 366

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

At that point, the police had sufficient information to believe that defendant had committed the crime of…

People v. Velez

Defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence was properly denied. Defendant's claims regarding…