Opinion
February 16, 2000
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Tills, J. — Suppression.
PRESENT: GREEN, A. P. J., HAYES, PIGOTT, JR., AND SCUDDER, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law, motion denied in part, indictment reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court erred in granting those parts of defendant's motion seeking suppression of identification evidence and statements to the police and dismissal of the indictment. The identification of defendant by complainant was not tainted by his observation of defendant at the courthouse six weeks after the crime. That observation was "purely inadvertent and not the product of deliberate efforts on the part of the police or the prosecution" ( People v. Bunch, 143 A.D.2d 838, 839). Further, even if complainant's view of defendant's photograph in the Assistant District Attorney's office and at the Grand Jury was impermissibly suggestive, the People demonstrated that complainant had an independent source for his in-court identification of defendant ( see, People v. Santos, 202 A.D.2d 258, 259, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1007; People v. Thomas, 188 A.D.2d 569, 572, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1021).
The stop of defendant and the transportation of defendant to the crime scene for a showup identification by a witness was supported by reasonable suspicion that defendant was the perpetrator of the burglary and robbery earlier that day ( see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242; People v. Miranda, 213 A.D.2d 560, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 977). Defendant's responses to the officer's questions at the time of the stop are not subject to suppression on the ground that defendant was not provided Miranda warnings ( see, People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 894). The showup, conducted a short time after the 911 call reporting that the perpetrator of those crimes had returned to the crime scene, was not impermissibly suggestive ( see, People v. La Mountain, 249 A.D.2d 584, 586, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 855). Following that showup, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant ( see, People v. Everson, 262 A.D.2d 1059; People v. Quarles, 187 A.D.2d 200, 203, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1018). Thus, defendant's statements to the officer in the patrol car were not the product of an illegal arrest.