People v. Hoffman

• Citation: 261 N.Y.S.2d 651,24 A.D.2d 497
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Raymond W. HOFFMAN and Robert J. Ryder, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 21 June 1965
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 651

261 N.Y.S.2d 651

24 A.D.2d 497

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Raymond W. HOFFMAN and Robert J. Ryder, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 21, 1965.

William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Mineola, for respondent People.

Cally & Cally, New York City, for appellant Ryder; James J. Cally, New York City, of counsel.

No brief or appearance for appellant Hoffman.

Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and BRENNAN, RABIN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a criminal action, the People appeal from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered December 18, 1964 after a hearing, which granted the defendants' joint motion made pursuant to statute (Code Crim.Proc. § 813-c), to suppress certain evidence against them on the ground that it was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. The People have filed the statement required by statute to perfect their appeal from said order (Code Crim.Proc. § 518, subd. 6; § 518-a).

Originally the motion was made by defendant Hoffman only; later the defendant Ryder submitted papers and formally joined in the motion. An order was thereafter entered on March 12, 1965, reciting the papers submitted by defendant Ryder, and in effect resettling the prior order of December 18, 1964 and granting the motion to suppress the evidence. No appeal was taken from such resettled order, but pursuant to the authority conferred by statute (Code Crim.Proc. § 524-b) such order has been reviewed.

Orders of December 18, 1964 and March 12, 1965 reversed on the law and the facts, and motion of both defendants to suppress evidence denied.

It is clear that the arresting officer was lawfully authorized to stop the automobile being driven by the defendant Hoffman and demand of its occupants the certificate of registration and such other information as set forth in section 401 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (People v. Scianno, 20 A.D.2d 919, 249 N.Y.S.2d 456; see also People v. Battle, 12 N.Y.2d 866, 237 N.Y.S.2d 341). Moreover, it is our opinion that in the proper performance of his duties, the police officer had the authority to stop and question Hoffman as a result of the latter's suspicious activities in the operation of the automobile at four o'clock in the morning. The evidence needed to make such inquiry is not of the same degree or conclusiveness as that required for an arrest. 'Prompt inquiry into suspicious or unusual street action is an indispensable police power in the orderly government of large urban communities' (People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 444-445, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 461, 201 N.E.2d 32, 34).

It is also our opinion that the two license plates which were lying in open view in the rear of the automobile and whose presence was revealed by means of a flashlight being directed into the automobile were not seized as the result of a search. 'It is well established that it is not a search to observe what is open and patent either in daylight or in artificial light' (Davis v. United States, 9 Cir., 327 F.2d 301, 305; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202; Smith v. United States, 4 Cir., 2 F.2d 715). Thus, the officer did not conduct an illegal search and seizure by shining a flashlight into the automobile, seeing the licenses plates, and then seizing them (People v. Anthony, 21 A.D.2d 666, 249 N.Y.S.2d 997).

We further conclude that the arrest of the defendant Hoffman did not take place until after he had been removed to the station house and the report was received that the license plates were stolen. Parenthetically...