Summary
In People v Henry, 150 AD2d 797 (2d Dept 1989), the court upheld the stop, even through it was three days after the robbery.
Summary of this case from People v. AnanabaOpinion
May 30, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with having committed an armed robbery in the Tau-Leo Bar in Freeport on the night of February 27, 1986. Nassau County Police Detective Petty interviewed the victim, who told him that he had been robbed at gunpoint by the defendant and two other men. Detective Petty was also provided with a detailed description as well as the license plate number of the automobile which the defendant had used to leave the scene of the robbery, and an alarm was issued. Three nights later, Detective Petty spotted the defendant's vehicle with two males inside, and, after radioing for assistance, stopped the vehicle. The detective approached the car with his weapon drawn, having observed the passenger lean over as though he was placing, or reaching for, something under the front seat. When the driver identified himself as Hugh Henry, he was arrested by Detective Petty. The passenger was also arrested as being a named participant in the robbery. After both men were handcuffed, Detective Petty searched the vehicle and found two handguns under the front seat on the passenger's side.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, Detective Petty had sufficient reason to stop the defendant's automobile since he was well aware that the vehicle had been used in an armed robbery only three nights prior to the stop and that the vehicle was owned by one of the alleged gunmen (see, People v Springer, 118 A.D.2d 606; see also, People v Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616; People v Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 1011, cert denied 450 U.S. 931). Once the driver of the vehicle identified himself as Hugh Henry and the passenger had identified himself as Jerry Walden, the detective had probable cause to arrest them based upon the statement provided by the victim (see, People v Smith, 124 A.D.2d 756, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 834). Having lawfully arrested the two men, Detective Petty was justified in conducting an immediate search of the automobile, since it was reasonable for him to believe that the vehicle may have contained evidence related to the robbery or that weapons would be found (see, People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, rearg denied 56 N.Y.2d 646). Rubin, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.