From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rajnauth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

August 3, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant's claim that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The defendant was identified by an informant, who knew him, as the person who had fired some five rounds from an automatic weapon into a group of people standing in the street, wounding one of them. This informant telephoned the police at least twice and, shortly after the defendant had been arrested, was interviewed by the officer who testified for the People at the suppression hearing. Therefore, the informant was not a presumptively unreliable "anonymous tipster," as the defendant suggests, but rather a frightened eyewitness who disclosed her identity only to the police. It is readily inferable from the suppression hearing evidence that this neighbor's information adequately satisfied the requirements of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. The evidence established that the informant was a reliable citizen whose identity was known to the police, and the basis of her knowledge was first-hand observation ( see, People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342, 346; People v. Hetrick, 80 N.Y.2d 344, 348-349; see also, People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852).

We also find that the People adequately established that there were exigent circumstances justifying the police officers' warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment. Among other things, the police had information that the defendant was in fact the shooter, that he was inside the apartment, that he was armed with a machine gun, and that there was a baby in the apartment with him ( see, e.g., People v. Cruz, 149 A.D.2d 151, 160; see also, People v. Green, 182 A.D.2d 704).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rajnauth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Rajnauth

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PHILIP RAJNAUTH…

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

Date published: Aug 3, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 632

Citing Cases

People v. Pendley

There was not for example, reliable evidence that a child was in the apartment and that that child was in…

People v. Pendley

There was not for example, reliable evidence that a child was in the apartment and that that child was in…