People v. Allen
| Decision Date | 21 March 1988 |
| Citation | 526 N.Y.S.2d 196,138 A.D.2d 612 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gary ALLEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Patrick Michael McKenna, Valley Stream, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Gordon S. Latz and Deborah Carlin Stevens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, WEINSTEIN and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.), rendered May 22, 1986, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements and physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
After receiving from an eyewitness an account of an attempted burglary of a nearby residence and his description of the two male perpetrators, the police apprehended the defendant and his companion. On-the-scene identifications were made by the eyewitness. It is well settled that information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of the commission of a specific crime is sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest (People v. Selasar, 91 A.D.2d 616, 617, 456 N.Y.S.2d 403; People v. Sanders, 79 A.D.2d 688, 689, 433 N.Y.S.2d 854). Inasmuch as the police, in the instant case, were in possession of specific and articulable facts which would reasonably lead a prudent person to conclude that the defendant and his companion had committed a crime, the arrest was properly based on probable cause.
The mere fact that approximately two hours may have elapsed between the point at which the defendant was advised of and waived his rights and his admission that he had acted as a lookout does not render the interrogation inherently coercive. "It is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous" ( People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, 484 N.Y.S.2d 64, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 889, 487 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 476 N.E.2d 1013, cert. denied 472 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3487, 87 L.Ed.2d 621).
Inasmuch as the record unequivocally indicates that the defendant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smedman
...statements on the ground that the second statement was not preceded by a rereading of the Miranda warnings (but see, People v. Allen, 138 A.D.2d 612, 526 N.Y.S.2d 196), and that the third statement was a tainted product of the second (but see, People v. Alaire, 148 A.D.2d 731, 737-738, 539 ......
-
People v. Stackhouse
...prior to each statement the defendant made at headquarters (see, People v. Starks, 139 A.D.2d 681, 527 N.Y.S.2d 358; People v. Allen, 138 A.D.2d 612, 526 N.Y.S.2d 196). Lastly, the court did not err in denying defense counsel's request for an adjournment to subpoena more witnesses during th......
-
People v. Vasquez
...denied, 472 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3487, 87 L.Ed.2d 621; see also, People v. Morris, 140 A.D.2d 551, 528 N.Y.S.2d 630; People v. Allen, 138 A.D.2d 612, 526 N.Y.S.2d 196). We find that the sentence imposed was not ...
-
People v. Williams
...is affirmed. Upon our review of the record, we find that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause (see, People v. Allen, 138 A.D.2d 612, 526 N.Y.S.2d 196). Suppression of the physical evidence was properly denied as the defendant lacked standing to challenge the propriety of a......