Opinion
339 KA 16–01980
07-31-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Torrence JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SARA A. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SARA A. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 220.09[1] ). On appeal, defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the drugs found on his person during a search incident to an arrest for unlawful imprisonment. We affirm.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the conduct reported by an identified citizen to his wife via text message, which the wife in turn reported to police, supplied probable cause to believe that defendant—who matched the perpetrator's description and was found driving a vehicle matching the wife's description in the very circumstances alleged by her husband—had committed, at a minimum, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree ( Penal Law § 135.05 ; see e.g. People v. Spaulding, 271 A.D.2d 463, 463–464, 705 N.Y.S.2d 392 [2d Dept. 2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 858, 714 N.Y.S.2d 9, 736 N.E.2d 870 [2000] ; People v. Guo Fai Liu, 271 A.D.2d 695, 696, 706 N.Y.S.2d 478 [2d Dept. 2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 866, 715 N.Y.S.2d 220, 738 N.E.2d 368 [2000] ). The record belies defendant's assertion that "[t]here was no way for the court below to determine what information [the husband] provided based on circumstances personally observed and whether [the wife] supplemented those facts [in her 911 call]." We reject defendant's contention that the People were obligated to introduce the text messages and 911 recording at the suppression hearing in order to establish probable cause for defendant's arrest (see People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342, 345–349, 610 N.Y.S.2d 464, 632 N.E.2d 870 [1994] ; People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 51–52, 476 N.Y.S.2d 56, 464 N.E.2d 424 [1984], cert denied 469 U.S. 852, 105 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed.2d 109 [1984] ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the husband's basis of knowledge was adequately established for purposes of the Aguilar–Spinelli test (see People v. Myhand, 120 A.D.3d 970, 974, 991 N.Y.S.2d 222 [4th Dept. 2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 952, 7 N.Y.S.3d 281, 30 N.E.3d 172 [2015] ; People v. Holmes, 115 A.D.3d 1179, 1180–1181, 982 N.Y.S.2d 239 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1038, 993 N.Y.S.2d 251, 17 N.E.3d 506 [2014] ). Finally, contrary to defendant's contention, because the wife, as an identified citizen, was a reliable source for relaying her husband's first-hand observations of defendant's conduct (see generally Parris, 83 N.Y.2d at 349–350, 610 N.Y.S.2d 464, 632 N.E.2d 870 ), the extent to which those observations were corroborated by the police before the arrest is irrelevant to the Aguilar–Spinelli analysis (see People v. Read, 74 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 904 N.Y.S.2d 147 [2d Dept. 2010] ).