People v. La Fontaine
| Citation | 603 N.Y.S.2d 660,159 Misc.2d 751 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Sixto LA FONTAINE, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1993 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., Robert Silbering, Office of the Sp. Narcotics Prosecutor, New York City (Susan Genis, of counsel), for people.
Jeremy Schneider, Rothman, Schneider, Soloway & Stern, New York City, for defendant.
May a police officer from a sister state, New Jersey, armed with a local arrest warrant issued by his state and with a federal arrest warrant issued by a United States District Court sitting in New Jersey, effect an extrajurisdictional arrest in the New York apartment of a suspect wanted by the sister state and the United States government?
This case presents an issue which, apparently, has not been addressed in any reported New York case.
The defendant, Sixto La Fontaine, asserts that New Jersey police officers unlawfully arrested him in his apartment because they had no authority beyond New Jersey's territorial limits to conduct arrests in New York State. Consequently, argues the defendant, the seizure of cocaine by the New Jersey police officers should also be deemed illegal, and such evidence should be excluded from the defendant's trial in New York.
Conversely, the People contend that the defendant's arrest was valid because, as private citizens, the New Jersey police seized the defendant and were, thus, entitled to arrest the defendant under Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") 140.30 (authorizing private citizen's arrest). Additionally, the People aver that the New Jersey officers were entitled to seize the defendant as agents of the New York City Police Department. Finally, the prosecution claims that the narcotics were obtained under the "plain view" doctrine.
To resolve the contentions of the parties, on March 29, 1993, the court conducted a suppression hearing, during which the prosecution called Detective Ronald Humphrey, the sole witness to appear. He testified candidly and credibly.
On November 18, 1992, Detective Humphrey, an eighteen year member of the Paterson, New Jersey Police Department, who is a highly experienced officer, together with Detectives Caudrado, Maute, and Sergeant Stell, all of the Paterson Police Department, were assigned to execute a fugitive arrest warrant for the defendant and one Miguel Ortiz. Both suspects were wanted by the State of New Jersey for conspiracy to murder under New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice ("N.J.C.C.J.") 2C:5-2 and aggravated assault under N.J.C.C.J. 2C:12-1(b)(1). 1 In addition, the defendant was sought by the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, for a violation of 18 United States Code ("U.S.C.") Section 1073 (). 2 Each of these three charges are felonies and were the bases of two arrest warrants, one issued by the Municipal Court of Paterson, New Jersey on August 20, 1992, and the other issued on October 8, 1992, by a United States District Court sitting in Newark, New Jersey. 3
In the morning of November 18, 1992, Humphrey and his colleagues went to the 34th Precinct in Manhattan. They apprised Precinct detectives that they had a fugitive warrant for the defendant and Ortiz, and that they suspected that the defendant and Ortiz had been sighted within the precinct's boundaries. They asked the 34th Precinct detectives for their help in locating the two alleged fugitives. Four 34th Precinct detectives joined the New Jersey officers in a fruitless search for the two suspects on 158th Street.
Upon returning to the precinct after this search, the New Jersey police told the 34th Precinct detectives that the New Jersey police desired to continue their pursuit of the two fugitives within the precinct's confines. The 34th Precinct detectives issued the New Jersey police officers a police radio, and the latter officers, without their New York cohorts, returned to their pursuit on Broadway between 158th and 165th Streets.
During this pursuit, the New Jersey detectives met with an informant who led the detectives to apartment 34 of 600 West 163rd Street in Manhattan. Upon arriving in this building the New Jersey officers went to this third floor apartment. Humphrey and Maute went to the door of apartment 34, and Stell and Caudrado went to a fire escape landing which was located outside the apartment's bedroom window.
At approximately 12:35 p.m. Humphrey and Maute knocked on the apartment door. Someone came to the door and asked who it was. The two detectives did not respond. Again, that same person demanded the identity of the person who had knocked on his apartment door, and the detectives identified themselves as the police. The door remained closed. The detectives heard shuffling inside the apartment and then heard Stell and Caudrado say, "Halt." Eventually, Stell and Caudrado arrested the defendant on the fire escape outside his apartment. Thereafter, the four New Jersey officers returned him to his apartment. Humphrey took custody of the defendant, escorted him into the kitchen, advised him of his Miranda rights, and brought him in front of a refrigerator. Also, Humphrey told the defendant that he was arrested under a fugitive warrant. Meanwhile, Humphrey's colleagues searched in the apartment for Ortiz, but were unable to locate him therein.
While searching the defendant in the kitchen, Humphrey observed and eventually seized a six to eight inch long coffee container and a "heater seal" which were on top of a refrigerator. The container held plastic baggies of cocaine and the heater seal is commonly used to seal plastic baggies.
At some point, the 34th Precinct was contacted, and units from that precinct arrived at the address. The defendant was taken from the building by 34th Precinct officers to the precinct stationhouse. After returning to the precinct, Humphrey gave to 34th Precinct Officer Vasquez the plastic baggies of cocaine and the heater seal, and again advised the defendant of his Miranda rights.
Ultimately, a New York County Grand Jury charged the defendant with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and one count of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the second degree in violation of Penal Law Sections 220.16(1), 220.16(12) and 220.50.
Additionally, Humphrey informed the court that, prior to November 18, 1992, on numerous occasions the detective had set up in New York City surveillance of Paterson residents who had allegedly purchased narcotics in New York City. Also, before November 18, 1992, the detective had executed warrants issued by the State of New Jersey in New York State. When executing those warrants, occasionally, the detective did so without the aid of New York law enforcement agents.
Finally, both parties stipulated that the New Jersey detectives were not acting as private citizens when they arrested the defendant and obtained the subject evidence.
Preliminarily, neither party contends that on November 18, 1992, the New Jersey police officers were in close or "hot" pursuit of the defendant under Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") 140.55 (Uniform Close Pursuit Act).
In dispute, is whether the New Jersey police officers had the authority to arrest the defendant in New York State. In order to resolve this question, several critical sub-issues
must be addressed under both Federal and New York State law:
1) Were the New Jersey police officers "police officers" or private citizens when they engaged in the activity heretofore discussed?
2) Were the New Jersey detectives agents of the 34th precinct, thereby triggering automatic application of the Fourth Amendment via the principle?
3) If the New Jersey detectives were not acting as agents of New York State but as private citizens, under the circumstances of this case, should the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule, nevertheless, govern the conduct of the New Jersey detectives?
4) If constitutional and exclusionary principles are indeed applicable to the case at bar:
(a) Did the arrest trigger the application of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)?; and
(b) If so, did the New Jersey and/or Federal arrest warrant(s) entitle the New Jersey police detectives to arrest the defendant in his own apartment?
Since the United States Supreme Court has determined that a federal suppression court must apply New York State law to determine if a state law enforcement officer or private person has the power to arrest in New York State a person who has allegedly committed a federal felony, United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948); United States v. Swarovski, 557 F.2d 40 (2nd Cir.1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 1045, 98 S.Ct. 889, 54 L.Ed.2d 796 (1978), it follows logically that a state suppression court, when considering the same question, must also apply New York State principles. Also, in the absence of federal authority on the status of foreign state officers, not in close pursuit, effecting an extraterritorial arrest in New York, state law must determine their status. In short, the law of this State will determine this sub-issue.
New York's Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") 1.20(34)(a-r) defines "police officer." The most applicable provision is CPL 1.20(34)(d):
Neither this particular subdivision nor any other under CPL 1.20(34) deems a police officer from another state a "police officer" pursuant to the CPL. Under CPL 1.20 subd. 34-a(b-c) and 1.20 subd. 36(b), which define the "geographical area of employment" of certain police officers and "county", New York City is the geographical area of employment for any police officer employed by an agency of New...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1998 -NMCA- 166, State v. Snyder
...Commonwealth v. Cryer, 426 Mass. 562, 689 N.E.2d 808, 813 (Mass.1998); Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327. But cf. People v. LaFontaine, 159 Misc.2d 751, 603 N.Y.S.2d 660, 667 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that officer of neighboring state would be deterred by application of exclusionary rule to evi......
-
People v. Concepcion
...arrest, basing its ruling on one of several alternative grounds put forward by the People to support the arrest's lawfulness (159 Misc.2d 751, 603 N.Y.S.2d 660 [1993] ). LaFontaine subsequently pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, the Appe......
-
People v. LaFontaine
...from his apartment, and that this was the "functional equivalent of an arrest inside his apartment" (People v. La Fontaine, 159 Misc.2d 751, 763, 603 N.Y.S.2d 660 [Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.] ). These findings are totally unsupported by the hearing evidence and the law. There is nothing to suggest that......
-
People v. Nieto
...615 [conflicts analysis required only where true conflict of law exists].) [3] The converse situation occurred in the case of People v La Fontaine (159 Misc 2d 751). In La Fontaine, the suppression court found that New Jersey police had arrested the defendant in his New York City apartment ......