People v. Alberta
| Decision Date | 27 November 1962 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Mildred ALBERTA, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Leonard Rubenfeld, Dist. Atty., White Plains, for the State.
Samuel Boxer, White Plains, for defendant.
Defendant has heretofore moved to suppress evidence allegedly illegally obtained, or for a hearing on the application, and for a dismissal of the indictment if it be found that it was grounded upon evidence obtained as a result of an illegal arrest, search and seizure. The motion was granted to the extent of directing a hearing on the application to suppress. (Decision of October 19, 1962) N.Y.L.J. October 26, 1962, Vol. 148--No. 82, p. 17. col. 7. Such hearing was held on November 5, 1962.
After hearing, defendant urges that her arrest by a private person was illegal and that the search and seizure made by such private person incidental to the arrest was unauthorized and illegal .
We are here concerned with the legality of a 'citizen's arrest' made by a Security Officer in the course of her duties while employed as such by a department store.
A private person may arrest another for a crime (misdemeanor or felony) committed or attempted in his presence. Code of Criminal Procedure, § 183(1); People v. Foster, 10 N.Y.2d 99, 102, 217 N.Y.S.2d 596, 598, 176 N.E.2d 397, 398. Before making an arrest, a private person must inform the person to be arrested of the cause thereof and require him to submit, except when he is in the actual commission of the crime or when he is arrested on pursuit immediately after its commission. Code of Criminal Procedure, § 184 . And such private person must without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him to a peace officer. Code of Criminal Procedure, § 185.
The evidence adduced on the hearing clearly establishes that defendant was properly arrested by a private person (security officer) for a misdemeanor (petit larceny-shoplifting) committed in the presence of the security officer.
On December 8, 1961, at about 1:55 P.M. one of the security officers in Alexander's Department Store observed defendant select two pairs of socks from a counter rack, place them in an Alexander's bag and, without stopping at a nearby cashier's desk to pay for them, leave the store and proceed into the parking lot. When about 60 feet from the store in the store's parking area, the security officer apprehended the defendant, and asked her for the socks she had neglected to pay for. She took them out and gave them to the security officer, who then took her to the store's security office, where she was asked to show what she had in two shopping bags she carried. Defendant emptied them and the security officer observed several other store items with the store's tickets on them in such condition as indicated the items had not been paid for. Defendant voluntarily signed a statement admitting she had taken a list of items totalling some $56.06 without paying for them.
Defendant was thereupon asked if she had any merchandise in her car which she had not paid for. She answered 'No'; and when asked if she would mind if the security officers checked her car, she said 'No', that it would be all right. She went to her car with them and unlocked the rear trunk, in which the security officers found defendant's pocket-book and four dresses, a slack suit and other small items, all with the store's price tickets still intact, indicating they were not paid for. Defendant voluntarily signed a second statement admitting she had taken a revised list of items totalling some $172.10 without paying for them .
At about 3:30 P.M. the security officers called for the police, and at about 3:45 P.M. a police officer arrived at the store, informed defendant she was under arrest for shoplifting on Alexander's security officer's complaint, and took defendant and the evidence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzalez
...439, 443, 30 Cal.Rptr. 1, 380 P.2d 641, Supra; People v. Currier, 232 Cal.App.2d 103, 110, 42 Cal.Rptr. Supra; cf. People v. Alberta, 37 Misc.2d 847, 848, 237 N.Y.S.2d 51, 52). Of course, if defendants had assisted the Federal agents in their search, this would be evidence of a voluntary co......
-
People v. Horman
...v. Viale, 312 F.2d 595, 600 (2d Cir., 1963), cert. den. 373 U.S. 903, 83 S.Ct. 1291, 10 L.Ed.2d 199; contra, cf. People v. Alberta, 37 Misc.2d 847, 849, 237 N.Y.S.2d 51, 53.) The question presented then is whether the Fourth Amendment requires exclusion in Criminal prosecutions of evidence ......
-
Ronny, In re
...that he had possession and had sold the type of drugs given up which he specified as 'Doriden' and 'barbiturates'. Cf. People v. Alberta, 37 Misc.2d 847, 237 N.Y.S.2d 51 (Co. Ct. Westchester, 1962) involving a private person's arrest of defendant and subsequent search permissible only on co......
-
People v. Santiago
...consent of the defendant. Defendant cites in support of this contention, Application of Fried, D.C., 68 F.Supp. 961 and People v. Alberta, 37 Misc.2d 847, 237 N.Y.S.2d 51. In the Fried case (supra, p. 964) the United States District Court Judge did state that 'a private person could in no e......