People v. Thornton

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Harris

    175 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Harris (175 A.D.2d 713, 714-715, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 827), we affirmed the hearing court which ruled admissible physical evidence seized incident to arrest where an unidentified informant approached the arresting officer at a crime scene, described the perpetrator, his clothing, and his escape route, and the officer, following the escape route, encountered and arrested an individual who was attempting to hide from him and matched the description, which included a bloodstained shirt.

    While this does not rise to the same level of reliability as a tip supplied by an identified informant (cf., People v Thornton, 139 A.D.2d 787), it is clearly more reliable than an anonymous tip received over the telephone, since the officer has an opportunity to assess the reliability of the informant "`on the basis of appearance and demeanor, factors crucial to any such assessment'" (People v Castro, 115 A.D.2d 433, 435, quoting People v Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169, 173; see also, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d, supra, at 224-225). This was particularly so here in light of the fact that there was no evidence that the informant refused to reveal or attempted to conceal his identity.

  2. People v. Cole

    152 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 11 times

    A suppression hearing was conducted at which the arresting officer testified that defendant's arrest was preceded by the spontaneous admission that "I want to give up. I haven't been able to sleep all night knowing what Ronnie and I did to the girl." In our view, these statements provided the necessary probable cause for defendant's arrest (see, CPL 140.10 [b]; People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423; see also, People v Hardy, 146 A.D.2d 800, 801; People v Thornton, 139 A.D.2d 787, 788, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 867; People v McEachern, 141 Misc.2d 140, 143). Finally, defendant assigns as error County Court's denial of his motion to disqualify the District Attorney.

  3. People v. Colson

    150 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    He was formally arrested, handcuffed and placed in a squad car. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the police possessed sufficient cause to stop and detain him in view of the contents of the radio transmission coupled with the officers' independent observations at the scene of the crime (see, People v Allen, 141 A.D.2d 405; People v Palmer, 140 A.D.2d 720; People v Timco, 135 A.D.2d 980). Moreover, once the officers affirmatively discovered that the store had, in fact, been burglarized, their actions in searching and arresting the defendant were justified since they had probable cause to believe that the defendant was one of the participants in the burglary which occurred only moments before their arrival (see, People v Thornton, 139 A.D.2d 787; see generally, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223). Accordingly, the hearing court was correct in denying suppression of the physical evidence seized by the police.

  4. In Matter of Robert S.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 52653 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2008)

    The Presentment Agency cites a litany of cases in support of its proposition. People v. Lypka, 36 NY2d 210 (1975); People v. Andrews, supra; People v. Ayala, 265 AD2d 155 (2d Dept 1999); People v. Reyes, 234 AD2d 63 (1st Dept 1996); People v. Townsend, 144 AD2d 508 (2d Dept 1988); People v. Thornton, 139 AD2d 787 (2d Dept 1988); People v. Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267 (1981). This Court disagrees that the anonymous tip alone was sufficiently reliable so as to warrant the police frisk. That Respondent's backpack was actually dark blue and not black and that he was wearing a white t-shirt rather than a black one, are not particularly significant issues for purposes of this analysis.

  5. People v. Garcia

    149 Misc. 2d 510 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990)

    (Cf., People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734 [where the police observed the defendant pass an envelope in an area known for drug activity]; People v. Allen, 141 A.D.2d 405 [1st Dept. 1988], affd on other grounds 73 N.Y.2d 378 [where the police received a report and first observed the defendants running]; People v. Hill, 127 A.D.2d 144 [1st Dept. 1987] [where the police received a radio transmission and subsequent direction to the defendant]; Matter of Dione Jamel M., 149 A.D.2d 421 [2d Dept. 1989] [where a police officer ran into a building upon hearing gunshots and the defendants ran upon seeing him]; People v. Kosciusko, 149 A.D.2d 620 [2d Dept. 1989] [where the police observed the defendant holding a plastic bag in an area known for drug activity]; People v. Townsend, 144 A.D.2d 508 [2d Dept. 1988] [where the police received a radio description and immediately arrived at the location and observed the defendant]; People v. Thornton, 139 A.D.2d 787 [2d Dept. 1988] [where the police were given a description and found the defendant near the scene].) "The absence of probable cause, however, is not dispositive of the outcome here since probable cause is not a necessary predicate for all contact between police and the citizenry * * *. It is settled that, under appropriate conditions, an officer may briefly detain and question a suspect in a public place on information not amounting to probable cause, for, until an actual arrest occurs, the Constitution demands only that the action of the police be justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope and intensity to the circumstances surrounding the encounter * * *. Thus, in measuring the lawfulness of police conduct, we are called upon to strike a balance between the citizen's inestimable * * * `right to be let alone' * * * and the degree to which the seizure is necessary to advance the public interest in the detection of crime and the apprehension of criminals * * *. And in