People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 26 March 1975 |
| Citation | 36 N.Y.2d 280,326 N.E.2d 818,367 N.Y.S.2d 256 |
| Parties | , 326 N.E.2d 818 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ritso DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert B. Sherman and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Steven W. Fisher, Elmhurst, of counsel), for respondent.
The facts are undisputed.
Hackett, a uniformed patrolman of the Housing Department Police, was conversing with a fellow officer on the sidewalk in front of their office on Marcy Avenue, Brooklyn, a high crime area where there were complaints and arrests for dangerous drugs, when he observed defendant about 10 feet distant, holding a woman's red and white polka dot purse, about two by three inches in size with a zipper top. Defendant opened the zipper halfway and withdrew matches. The officers moved to within three feet of defendant when Hackett saw what appeared to be glassine envelopes in the purse. On cross-examination, Hackett, when asked 'you couldn't see whether or not it was a glassine envelope or a candy wrapper, could you?', responded 'I couldn't distinguish the two at that time, but it appeared to me to be glasine (sic) envelopes or the wrapper of a Hershey bar.' As Hackett continued his approach, defendant handed the purse to a woman who accepted it without comment. Defendant and the woman were arrested and a search of the purse revealed 18 glassine envelopes containing a white powder, later found to be heroin. Hackett had some experience with heroin arrests and had taken a brief course regarding the recognition and packaging of the substance. Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, stating that the policeman was able to see only glassine envelopes but not their contents and holding that he did not have probable cause to make a search and to arrest defendant. The Appellate Division reversed, on the law, finding that the totality of the surrounding circumstances formed a sufficient justification to warrant Hackett's actions.
Where the observed acts of the defendant were susceptible of various innocent interpretations, even if involving a person with a narcotics background, where the behavior was at most equivocal and suspicious, and where there was no supplementation by any additional behavior raising the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause, more must be shown to form the basis for a warrantless arrest and an incidental search (People v. Russell, 34 N.Y.2d 261, 264,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kreichman
...of itself, will not constitute probable cause (cf. People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 324 N.E.2d 872; People v. Davis, 36 N.Y.2d 280, 367 N.Y.S.2d 256, 326 818; People v. Alexander, 37 N.Y.2d 202, 371 N.Y.S.2d 876, 333 N.E.2d 157). Nor can the flight or the intensity of the ......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...435 N.E.2d 395 reversing on dissenting opinion of Hancock, J., 82 A.D.2d 389, 395, 442 N.Y.S.2d 316; see also, People v. Davis, 36 N.Y.2d 280, 367 N.Y.S.2d 256, 326 N.E.2d 818; People v. Russell, 34 N.Y.2d 261, 357 N.Y.S.2d 415, 313 N.E.2d 732). While it is argued that the search may be sus......
-
People v. Wirchansky
...in seemingly innocent conduct (see People v. Corrado, 22 N.Y.2d 308, 292 N.Y.S.2d 648, 239 N.E.2d 526; cf. People v. Davis, 36 N.Y.2d 280, 367 N.Y.S.2d 256, 326 N.E.2d 818; People v. Brown, 32 N.Y.2d 172, 174, 344 N.Y.S.2d 356, 357, 297 N.E.2d 94, 95). The principle is aptly expressed as fo......
-
People v. Howard
...pace, we conclude that, though the carrying by a man of a woman's purse does not constitute probable cause (People v. Davis, 36 N.Y.2d 280, 367 N.Y.S.2d 256, 326 N.E.2d 818, cert. den. 423 U.S. 876, 96 S.Ct. 149, 46 L.Ed.2d 109) and though defendant could, the car being unmarked and the off......