People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 26 April 1973 |
| Citation | 344 N.Y.S.2d 356,32 N.Y.2d 172,297 N.E.2d 94 |
| Parties | , 297 N.E.2d 94 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Irving BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Naidus, Brooklyn, and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Harry Brodbar, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
The defendant was arrested at about 7:30 P.M. on February 17, 1971, in the vicinity of 431 Ralph Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, by a patrolman who had been dispatched to that location to make a 'notification' to a person living there. Upon leaving the building, the officer observed the defendant carrying a crowbar and an automobile battery, the cables of which appeared torn. The patrolman then stopped the defendant and asked whether he owned the battery, to which he replied, 'Yes'. The defendant was then asked whether he owned the crowbar, to which he again answered, 'Yes'. The officer then arrested the defendant purportedly for the possession of a burglar's tool and the possession of stolen property. In searching the defendant incident to the arrest, the officer found one hypodermic needle, one syringe, one bottle cap, and an unspecified quantity of a drug suspected to be heroin. The defendant was subsequently charged with criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the sixth degree (Penal Law, § 220.05) and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument (Penal Law, § 220.45). No charges were filed with respect to possession of the crowbar or the battery.
The Criminal Court of the City of New York granted defendant's motion to suppress the heroin and the narcotics paraphernalia. The Appellate Term reversed, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant, that the search incident was legal, and that the contraband thereafter seized was admissible into evidence against him.
We reverse, for defendant's actions, although not inconsistent with culpable possession of a burglar's tool and stolen property, are also susceptible of many innocent interpretations. His behavior, at most equivocal and suspicious, was unsupplemented by any additional behavior or circumstances raising 'the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause'. (See People v. Corrado, 22 N.Y.2d 308, 311, 313, 292 N.Y.S.2d 648, 652, 239 N.E.2d 526, 529.) For example, the defendant's answers to the officer's questions were not evasive or unresponsive. (People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101, 102--103, 105, 308 N.Y.S.2d 836, 257 N.E.2d 23; People v. Brady, 16 N.Y.2d 186, 189, 264 N.Y.S.2d 361, 211 N.E.2d 815.) Indeed, it appears he was afforded very little...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wirchansky
...292 N.Y.S.2d 648, 239 N.E.2d 526; cf. People v. Davis, 36 N.Y.2d 280, 367 N.Y.S.2d 256, 326 N.E.2d 818; People v. Brown, 32 N.Y.2d 172, 174, 344 N.Y.S.2d 356, 357, 297 N.E.2d 94, 95). The principle is aptly expressed as follows: 'The logical and practical problem is that even accepting urgr......
-
People v. Butler
...search of defendant's person ( People v. Washington, 58 A.D.2d 971, 971–972, 396 N.Y.S.2d 935 [1977] ; see People v. Brown, 32 N.Y.2d 172, 174, 344 N.Y.S.2d 356, 297 N.E.2d 94 [1973] ).Finally, it was only after this improper search that defendant fled and discarded the drugs; thus, he was ......
-
People v. Batista
...rate is a relevant circumstance to be considered in determining the existence of probable cause (See, People v. Brown, 32 N.Y.2d 172, 174 (344 N.Y.S.2d 356, 357, 297 N.E.2d 94, 95); People v. Hunter, 30 N.Y.2d 774, 776 (333 N.Y.S.2d 761-762, 284 N.E.2d 879); People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441,......
-
People v. McRay
...circumstance in assessing probable cause (e. g., People v. Oden, 36 N.Y.2d 382, 385, 368 N.Y.S.2d 508, 329 N.E.2d 188, supra; People v. Brown, 32 N.Y.2d 172, 174, 344 N.Y.2d 356, 297 N.E.2d 94). And, the police officer's experience and training in narcotics investigations are entitled to we......