Opinion
July 28, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The hearing court properly found that the uniformed officers possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant. To establish probable cause in this context, it must be found that the police officers acted reasonably in believing that a crime had been committed by the defendant. In making such a judgment, we must also bear in mind that "[i]n dealing with probable cause * * * we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act" (Brinegar v United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175; see, People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254; People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366). Here, the police were informed by a named citizen that a crime had just been committed by two men seen on the street. Such information given by citizens is deemed highly reliable and may be acted upon by the police (People v Selasar, 91 A.D.2d 616; see, e.g., People v Moore, 32 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 414 U.S. 1011). Armed with the knowledge that a robbery had just been committed by the two men, the police officers were reasonable in their belief that the men may have been armed, and therefore it was proper for them to approach the men with their guns drawn (see, People v Selasar, supra). Further, the defendant's flight from the scene upon seeing the officers corroborated the citizen's allegation that a crime had been committed by him (see, People v King, 65 N.Y.2d 702; People v Grego, 90 A.D.2d 878; People v Casado, 83 A.D.2d 385). Accordingly, the police possessed probable cause to believe the defendant had committed the crime.
Additionally, we find that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the crimes charged (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.