From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1988
144 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

November 14, 1988

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Some 3 to 4 minutes after receiving a radio message advising that two men were scaling an apartment building fire escape in Long Beach, Police Officers Resnick and Calabrese arrived at the scene and, through the glass front of the building, observed two men running down the building stairwell from the second floor. As they exited their vehicle and approached the building, the officers received a walkie-talkie transmission from a third officer stationed nearby who reported that she had "an open [apartment] door on the second floor". The officers then ran to the front door of the building and there intercepted the two men, who attempted to push aside the officers and exit through the doorway. The officers briefly detained the men and patted them down, recovering a blackjack and a lighter. Subsequently, a small screwdriver was discovered near the defendant's right foot after one of the officers observed the defendant bending over and heard the sound of something hitting the floor. After another officer confirmed that an apartment on the second floor had, in fact, been burglarized, the men were handcuffed and transported to police headquarters.

The hearing court denied the defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that since the police officers reasonably suspected that a crime was being committed, their detention and frisk of the defendant and his accomplice were lawful. We agree.

Considering the rapidly developing circumstances with which the officers were confronted — including the radio transmission that a door was open on the second floor from where the defendant was running — it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that a crime was being committed in the apartment building and that the defendant and his accomplice may have been its perpetrators (see, CPL 140.50; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106). Moreover, the information possessed by the police officers — suggesting that a burglary had been committed — when considered in conjunction with the conduct of the men in attempting to push the officers aside as they ran, gave rise to a reasonable belief that the officers' safety was threatened, justifying their subsequent frisking of the defendant and his accomplice (see, CPL 140.50; see also, People v Mack, 26 N.Y.2d 311, 317, cert denied 400 U.S. 960; People v Middleton, 119 A.D.2d 593, 595, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 915).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111; People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91; People v. Woolard, 124 A.D.2d 763, 764, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 751). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1988
144 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Flores

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANIBAL FLORES…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1988

Citations

144 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Harrill

In accordance with the holding, however, those cases have invariably involved a suspicion that a violent…

People v. Dickerson

Notably, the police had not drawn their guns, yet were acting in the face of a rapidly unfolding scene, in an…