Jaime G., Matter of

• Decision Date: 06 October 1994
• Citation: 208 A.D.2d 382,617 N.Y.S.2d 13
• Parties: In the Matter of JAIME G., A Person Alleged to be A Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 13

617 N.Y.S.2d 13

208 A.D.2d 382

In the Matter of JAIME G., A Person Alleged to be A Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Oct. 6, 1994.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, ROSENBERGER, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about December 17, 1993, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the Division for Youth, non-secure detention, for a period of up to 1 year, following a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied suppression of the handgun that appellant discarded upon observing the officers approach him in their patrol car. The approach was justified to protect appellant's life or health (Family Ct Act § 1024), appellant having twice ignored the officers' warnings to leave a dangerous neighborhood late at night (see, Matter of Jose R., 201 A.D.2d 260, 607 N.Y.S.2d 23). Since the approach was lawful, the recovery of property discarded by appellant as a result of the approach was also lawful (People v. Braithwaite, 172 A.D.2d 548, 549, 568 N.Y.S.2d 135, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 920, 573 N.Y.S.2d 472, 577 N.E.2d 1064, citing People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 506 N.Y.S.2d 320, 497 N.E.2d 687). The result would be the same even if the officers had been acting not in their public service role under Family Court Act § 1024 but as enforcers of the criminal law (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 218, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562), since, upon observing appellant a third time, they had an "articulable reason" to approach and inquire of him his reason for being in the area (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204). Contrary to appellant's characterization of the police action as an "aggressive" U-turn and a "pursuit", the record shows that the approach was made in a "nonthreatening" manner (id., at 191, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619), i.e., without sirens or flashing lights. And even if the approach were deemed unduly intense, and thus unlawful, appellant's response of running around the corner, placing the gun behind a refrigerator and then walking away showed that his discarding of the gun was not "a spontaneous reaction to a sudden and unexpected...