From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1983
91 A.D.2d 1051 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

January 24, 1983


Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 5, 1981, which granted the defendant's motion, after a hearing, to suppress certain physical evidence. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, motion to suppress denied, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings. On January 17, 1981, at 3:45 A.M., police officers received a radio report (based on an anonymous tip) of a black man wearing a gray and black jacket and a black hat possessing a gun at 165th Street and Jamaica Avenue. A radio car responding to the call found no one at the reported location but did observe an individual matching the description a block away. The individual (later identified as the defendant) was with two others, and appeared to quicken his pace on spotting the approaching patrol car. Subsequently, the police exited the car with guns drawn and ordered the three to freeze. One of the officers then patted down the defendant and uncovered a loaded handgun in a shoulder holster. At an ensuing suppression hearing the court granted defendant's motion to suppress. We disagree. The description given to the police officers matched that of the defendant who was found within a block of the reported location two minutes following the radio report, thereby providing an indicia of reliability as to the anonymous tip (cf. People v Sustr, 73 A.D.2d 582, mot for lv to app den 49 N.Y.2d 896). Moreover, the encounter occurred late at night, preventing the observation of a weapon outline (see People v. McLaurin, 43 N.Y.2d 902, revg 56 A.D.2d 80, 84, on dissenting opn of Nunoz, J.). In addition the police were aware that shots had been reported in the vicinity only an hour and a half before. Finally, defendant, who was with two other individuals, appeared to quicken his pace upon spotting the police. Under the totality of the circumstances, particularly since the police radio report mentioned the possession of a gun, the police acted prudently to insure their own safety (cf. People v. McLaurin, supra; People v Kinlock, 43 N.Y.2d 832; People v. Fernandez, 58 N.Y.2d 791; People v. Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169). Mollen, P.J., Damiani, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1983
91 A.D.2d 1051 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

People v. Sutton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. GLENROY SUTTON…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1983

Citations

91 A.D.2d 1051 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

People v. Townsend

We conclude that in light of the circumstances, the police officer acted within the bounds of the law, and…

People v. Joyner

Since the radio report was that the perpetrator was armed with a gun, it was not unreasonable for Rodgers to…