People v. Bandera
| Decision Date | 02 May 1994 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Luis BANDERA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kevin M. Callaghan, Mount Kisco, for appellant.
Jeanine Pirro, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Peter A. Pagnucco and Maryanne Luciano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Pirro, J.), rendered May 7, 1992, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the County Court erroneously denied suppression of evidence and statements because he was arrested for harassment, which is a violation (see, Penal Law former § 240.25[1], in contravention of the mandate of CPL 140.10(1)(a) which requires such an offense (see, CPL 1.20[39] be committed in the officer's presence for a warrantless arrest to be validly effectuated. Accordingly, he asserts, since the arrest was invalid, statements made by him as well as drugs recovered incident to that arrest should have been suppressed. However, notwithstanding that the arresting officers subjectively believed that the defendant had committed only harassment, a violation, the information provided in person by the identified complainant (see, e.g., People v. Cotton, 143 A.D.2d 680, 532 N.Y.S.2d 911) provided the officers with sufficient objective facts constituting probable cause to justify an arrest for crimes including assault in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 120.00). It is well-settled that the subjective beliefs of the arresting officers are not controlling on the issue of whether probable cause exists for an arrest (see, People v. Green, 103 A.D.2d 362, 480 N.Y.S.2d 220). Rather, it is for the court to make this determination upon a review of all relevant objective information known to the officer at the time of the arrest (see, People v. Lopez, 95 A.D.2d 241, 465 N.Y.S.2d 998; see also, People v. Wheeler, 123 A.D.2d 411, 506 N.Y.S.2d 474). In this case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miller
...547 U.S. 398, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) ; People v. Cooper, 38 A.D.3d 678, 833 N.Y.S.2d 118 (2007) ; People v. Bandera, 204 A.D.2d 340, 611 N.Y.S.2d 290, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 1002, 616 N.Y.S.2d 483, 640 N.E.2d 151 (1994) ]. Rather, it is measured by the objective circumstances,......
-
Shaw v. City of N.Y.
...People v. Gleeson, 161 A.D.2d 902, 557 N.Y.S.2d 467 ; People v. Byrd, 156 A.D.2d 374, 374, 548 N.Y.S.2d 329 ; see also People v. Bandera, 204 A.D.2d 340, 341, 611 N.Y.S.2d 290 ). Moreover, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause o......
-
People v. Carver
...lawful where arresting officer had information that gave him probable cause to arrest defendant for robbery); see also People v. Bandera, 204 A.D.2d 340, 341, 611 N.Y.S.2d 290 (2d Dept. 1994); People v. Gustafson, 110 A.D.2d 1055, 488 N.Y.S.2d 911 (4th Dept. 1985). Moreover, if the objectiv......
- People v. Baker