Kevin W., Matter of
| Decision Date | 03 December 1992 |
| Citation | 590 N.Y.S.2d 486,188 A.D.2d 301 |
| Parties | In the Matter of KEVIN W., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and WALLACH, KUPFERMAN and KASSAL, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, F.C.J.), rendered October 31, 1991, which granted respondent's motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Uniformed officers observed respondent from a distance of a hundred feet standing against a fence surrounded by three or four people in a drug-prone area. When approached by the first of these individuals, respondent put his right hand into his left inside jacket pocket, removed an object, and with a closed fist, handed it to the person who had approached him. The individual then gave respondent "what seemed to be currency" or "some kind of paper." Within the next two minutes, two other individuals separately approached respondent and the same exchanges transpired. Respondent looked up and down the block, moving his head from side to side before each person approached him. Without inquiry, the officers approached and arrested respondent, recovering 53 vials of cocaine and United States currency.
Respondent moved, inter alia, to suppress the evidence but the motion was denied. The fact-finding hearing then commenced at which the officers testified. At the close of the hearing, the court, sua sponte, reopened the suppression hearing on the ground that the testimony failed to establish probable cause for the arrest, and directed the parties to submit legal memoranda on the issue. Subsequently, the court granted the suppression motion, finding, inter alia, that respondent's conduct was just as susceptible of an innocent interpretation as a culpable one, and that the law required more than an assumption for the police to arrest, even in a drug-prone neighborhood.
The determination of a suppression court, which has the advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses must be accorded much weight (People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). "A police officer's observation of an exchange between defendant and another individual of an undescribed object and United States currency is insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest defendant." (People v. Wilson, 175 A.D.2d 15, 17, 571 N.Y.S.2d 487, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1015, 575 N.Y.S.2d 823, 581 N.E.2d 1069 [citations omitted]. Furthermore, an officer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...criminality, which was elevated to probable cause when one of the buyers fled from the approaching police (see also, Matter of Kevin W, 188 A.D.2d 301, 590 N.Y.S.2d 486). In People v. Graham, 211 A.D.2d 55, 626 N.Y.S.2d 95 lv. denied86 N.Y.2d 795, 632 N.Y.S.2d 508, 656 N.E.2d 607, police of......
-
Devon H., Matter of
...those dismissal orders entered prior to the commencement of the fact-finding hearing. We have previously held, in Matter of Kevin W., 188 A.D.2d 301, 302, 590 N.Y.S.2d 486, that where, as here, the Family Court denies a suppression motion following a hearing and then reopens it sua sponte f......
-
People v. Shaw
...challenge to offer any explanation, even implausible, which might innocently account for the actions observed. Matter of Kevin W., 188 A.D.2d 301, 590 N.Y.S.2d 486 stands merely for the proposition that observation of purported drug transactions in a drug-prone neighborhood, absent some add......
-
People v. King
...throwing of envelope to ground after sighting officers provided reasonable suspicion--"Level III"), or less, Matter of Kevin W., 188 A.D.2d 301, 590 N.Y.S.2d 486 (1st Dept., 1992) (LEXIS, States library, New York file) (numerous exchanges of unidentified object for money in drug prone locat......