Opinion
10-04-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Norman RANDALL, Defendant–Appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Karen M. Kalikow of Counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julia P. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Karen M. Kalikow of Counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julia P. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J. at suppression hearing; Laura A. Ward, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered January 14, 2013, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. We conclude that an officer's removal of a knife from defendant's pocket was within the scope of lawful police conduct under the principle articulated in People v. Miranda, 19 N.Y.3d 912, 950 N.Y.S.2d 615, 974 N.E.2d 661 (2012). When the officer saw defendant riding a bicycle unsafely and in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, the officer was entitled to stop defendant and order him off the bicycle, regardless of whether the officer's initial intent was to give defendant an admonition instead of a ticket, and whether the officer also wished to investigate a suspicious handle protruding from defendant's pocket (see People v. Edwards, 14 N.Y.3d 741, 742, 898 N.Y.S.2d 538, 925 N.E.2d 576 [2010] ; People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 349, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 [2001] ). The officer had a reasonable basis for asking defendant whether the object in his pocket was a knife, especially since, before asking, the officer noticed that the handle appeared to be that of a knife, and also recognized several indicia that defendant was a gang member (see People v. O'Donnell, 122 A.D.3d 475, 996 N.Y.S.2d 269 [1st Dept.2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1122, 3 N.Y.S.3d 763, 27 N.E.3d 477 [2015] ; People v. Terrance, 101 A.D.3d 624, 957 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1065, 962 N.Y.S.2d 616, 985 N.E.2d 926 [2013] ). When defendant acknowledged that the object was a knife, the officer lawfully retrieved it, regardless of whether he believed the knife to be legal or illegal (see Miranda, 19 N.Y.3d at 914, 950 N.Y.S.2d 615, 974 N.E.2d 661 ). Contrary to defendant's argument, at the time the officer acquired the knife, he was still “engaged in a lawful encounter with defendant” (id. ), that is, a single, rapidly unfolding encounter relating to the traffic violation as well as the officer's other observations.