From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 11, 1994
206 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

July 11, 1994

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's present contention, we find that the County Court did not err in denying the branches of his motion which were to suppress physical evidence and inculpatory statements. The record demonstrates that the arresting detective had ample probable cause to place the defendant's companion under arrest for armed robbery, that the detective had a prior familiarity with the defendant from a previous robbery investigation, and that he also was aware of a tip which the police had received indicating that the defendant's companion and another male intended to commit a robbery at a nearby location on that date. Inasmuch as the detective's belief that the defendant might be armed was reasonable and he testified that he was concerned for his own safety and sought to effect the arrest of the defendant's companion in a crowded restaurant without incident, we find that the minimally-intrusive conduct of frisking the defendant was reasonable and lawful under the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Nelson, 179 A.D.2d 784; People v. Burgos, 175 A.D.2d 211; People v. Jenkins, 87 A.D.2d 526; see generally, People v. Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869; People v Harry, 187 A.D.2d 669; People v. Davis, 166 A.D.2d 604).

Furthermore, we agree with the People's contention that, even if the initial police conduct in this case had been unlawful, the defendant's subsequent statements and the sneakers taken from him would not have been subject to suppression. After the police showed the defendant a bank surveillance photograph depicting the defendant in the bank during the course of the robbery, the defendant made inculpatory statements. Thus, the hearing record demonstrates that any purported taint had dissipated because independent probable cause for the arrest existed. Further, several hours had passed, and Miranda warnings had been administered before the defendant was questioned (see, People v Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Wilson, 57 N.Y.2d 786; People v Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 438; People v. Paden, 158 A.D.2d 554; People v Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695; People v. Sanders, 122 A.D.2d 86).

The contentions set forth in the defendant's pro se brief are not properly before this Court or are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 11, 1994
206 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Rich

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK RICH, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 11, 1994

Citations

206 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 545

Citing Cases

People v. Tyrell

This factor can only be weighed in conjunction with the other factors in the case. A period of several hours,…

People v. Dwayne McFadden

05; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Treadwell, 206 AD2d 861). We have considered the defendant's…