People v. Bradford
| Decision Date | 21 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–0023.,10–0023. |
| Citation | 28 Misc.3d 1220,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51415,957 N.Y.S.2d 637 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Jamel BRADFORD, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William J. Fitzpatrick, Esq., District Attorney of Onondaga County, Bridget A. Scholl, Esq., of counsel, for the People.
Edward W. Klein, Esq., for the Defendant, Jamel Bradford.
Pursuant to the Defendant's request, the Court has held a suppression hearing and as a result thereof, the Court has made the following FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Court finds from the credible testimony at hearing that on December 31st, 2009 at approximately 5:36 p.m., Officer Brent Potts, a police officer assigned to the Crime Reduction Team of the Syracuse Police Department, was travelling in a marked vehicle with his partner Officer Sean Thomas in the area of 300 Rich Street in the City of Syracuse when they observed a black Dodge Durango license plate number EUA8052 fail to signal as it turned right from Rich Street onto Sterling Ave in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1163(d). Upon making this observation, Officer Potts activated his lights and sirens to conduct a vehicle and traffic stop of the vehicle however the vehicle did not stop. Officer Potts then advised dispatch of the vehicle's failure to comply and requested assistance. Officer Potts testified that there were three occupants of the vehicle, the driver, front seat passenger and a rear seat passenger. Officer Potts further testified that he followed the vehicle which continued travelling on Sterling Ave and then turned right on to Palmer Ave, again without signalling at which time he made the observation that the front seat passenger, Jamel Bardford, was not wearing his seat belt. Still failing to comply, the vehicle then turned right on Bellevue Ave and continued just passed Sheridan Street at Holland and pulled over to the left side of the shoulder at which time Officer Potts terminated the failure to comply call. Officer Potts then proceeded to the right side of the vehicle and again observed the front seat passenger without his seat belt on. As the vehicle came to a stop, the driver exited the vehicle and fled, running westbound on Holland Street. The defendant also exited the vehicle and ran westbound on Holland Street. Officer Potts testified that he observed the defendant run down the middle of Holland Street and not use the side walk which was otherwise clear and safe for pedestrian travel. Officer Potts detained the rear seat passenger while Officer Thomas pursued the driver and another officer in a marked vehicle that was heading eastbound on Holland Street pursued the defendant, Jamel Bradford. Officer Potts testified that he was then advised that the defendant was apprehended by Officer Malone and was asked by Officer Malone to conduct a field test of a white chunky substance that Officer Malone had recovered from the defendant's pocket incident to his arrest of the defendant for Vehicle and Traffic Law Violation Section 1156–a. The test result of the substance was positive for the presence of cocaine. Officer Potts formerly issued vehicle and traffic tickets to the defendant for a seatbelt violation and for failing to use the sidewalk (Vehicle and Traffic Law Violation Sections 1229–c & 1156–a). An inventory search of the vehicle was also conducted revealing marijuana under the rear passenger seat, a digital scale and five cell phones.
Syracuse Police Officer Michael Malone testified that on December 31st, 2009 at approximately 5:36 p.m. he was assigned to patrol the south side of the City of Syracuse and while in the 200 block of Holland Street he heard a radio transmission regarding a failure to comply. Subsequent to the initial chase dispatch, Officer Malone then heard a second call cancelling the failure to comply indicating that the chase was terminated. Officer Malone then observed the vehicle that was described in the failure to comply abruptly stop at the intersection of Sheridan Drive and Holland Street. Officer Malone described the vehicle as being a black Dodge Durango, New York Registration EUA8052. Officer Malone then observed the front seat passenger flee the vehicle eastbound running in the middle of the street down Holland Street in his direction. Officer Malone testified that at the time he observed the individual running, the sidewalk was clear for pedestrian travel. This Court finds as a fact from the credible testimony and evidence presented that the sidewalk was clear and could be used safely when Officer Malone and his partner commenced their foot chase of the defendant. Based upon this observation along with his knowledge that the vehicle the defendant was fleeing from had been the subject of a police chase, Officer Malone and his partner exited their patrol vehicle. The Court finds as a fact that upon seeing Officer Malone and his partner, the defendant altered his direction and started running south in between two houses on Holland Street, 229 and 233. Officer Malone cut behind 229 Holland Street and jumped the fence that surrounded 229 Holland Street. Once behind the houses, Officer Malone did not observe anyone running and he testified that he believed the defendant was still in that immediate area. Officer Malone then searched the backyard and in the southwest corner behind a tree, he located the defendant, Jamel Bradford, laying in the snow. The defendant was then taken into custody for the vehicle and traffic violation for failing to use the sidewalk and was searched incident to that arrest. As a result of Officer Malone's search, he located a white chunky substance consistent with crack cocaine in the defendant's front pants pocket. Also recovered from the defendant was two cell phones and $436. The Court also finds from the credible testimony that Officer Potts had probable cause to arrest the defendant Jamel Bradford for his failure to wear a seat belt in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1229–c(3).
The defendant, Jamel Bradford, testified at the hearing on his own behalf. Mr Bradford stated at approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 31st, 2009, he was the front seat passenger of a Dodge Durango and that said vehicle was being pursued by the police for the driver's failure to comply with the lights and sirens of the police. The driver then stopped the vehicle at the intersection of Holland Street and Sheridan Drive in Syracuse at which time he exited the vehicle and ran up Holland Street. Mr. Bradford testified that he ran in the roadway but near the curb because the sidewalk was covered with snow. Mr. Bradford did admit however that the sidewalk was clear at the driveway entrance to 229 Holland Street and that is where he ran, straight back in between two houses and into the backyard while he was being pursued by the police and ultimately was found by the police hiding in the snow behind a tree. Mr. Bradford indicated that he had a New York State Driver's License, parole identification and a benefit card with him that day. He also admitted that he also possessed cocaine in his right pants pocket along with four hundred and thirty six dollars in cash and two cell phones.
People v. Brown, 277 A.D.2d 107, 108.
The burden of proof lies with a defendant who challenges the admissibility and seeks the suppression of physical evidence. It is he who must convincingly show that said evidence was searched for and seized from him in an unlawful manner and, therefore, should not be introduced against him at trial. Not withstanding, it is the People who bear the initial burden of showing the legality of police conduct at its inception (see People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351;People v. DiStefano, 38 N.Y.2d 640;People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361).
In the present case, the defendant, Jamel Bradford, contends that the Court should suppress any and all evidence recovered during a search of his person upon the grounds that the police lacked sufficient legal justification for the search of the defendant which resulted in the recovery of the cocaine, that is the subject of this indictment.
On the other hand, the People contend that based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the police had probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle the defendant was in had committed a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation and the police personally observed the defendant commit two additional Vehicle and Traffic Law violations (Section 1229 and 1156) and that based upon those observations and the defendant's flight from the police, the police acted reasonably in arresting the defendant and searching him incidental to such lawful arrest. This Court agrees.
The Court of Appeals in People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, set out a four tiered method for evaluating the propriety of encounters initiated by police officers in their criminal law enforcement capacity:
The first level permits an officer to approach a citizen and request information, provided the police have some objective credible reason for the intrusion, not necessarily indicative of criminality ( DeBour, supra at 223; see also, People v. Holloman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 184;People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 985). Although the informational inquiry is merely a limited intrusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bradford
...of the issuance of a summons,” and that “he wanted to escape from the police and avoid prosecution altogether” (People v. Bradford, 28 Misc.3d 1220[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51415[U], *8, 2010 WL 3170721). We therefore conclude that the police acted reasonably in arresting defendant ( see id.)......