People v. Brownlee
| Decision Date | 13 June 1983 |
| Citation | 465 N.Y.S.2d 422,119 Misc.2d 996 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Dwight BROWNLEE, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The court conducted a Huntley hearing during which the People called Mr. Louis Santora, Port Authority Police Officer George Clemens and New York City Detective Edward Cahill.
The court finds that on November 10, 1982, Santora stopped his motor vehicle in front of the Ski Deli building, a delicatessen, to purchase a beer. Upon returning to his motor vehicle, he observed and felt the defendant rise from the rear seat. He observed a silver or chrome colored revolver in defendant's hand and was ordered to drive out of the airport. Santora drove approximately five to six minutes during which time he observed the defendant's face on numerous occasions in the rear view mirror. During this drive, he eventually was able to turn into a driveway with a guard booth and upon doing so, he opened the driver's door and escaped.
Upon entering the JFK police station, Santora related the incident to the police, who immediately broadcasted a description of the car as well as Santora's description of the defendant.
Clemens heard the broadcast and while patrolling the area, drove past a clump of bushes where he noticed some movement. He called for a back-up and went after the defendant, who was trying to crawl away. He drew his revolver, placed him under arrest and searched him. The defendant had a chrome pair of handcuffs in his possession. After placing him under arrest, Clemens gave defendant his Miranda rights but did not question him. Upon returning to the precinct, defendant was placed in a room with a two-way mirror and Santora identified him as the perpetrator. After the identification, Clemens read the defendant his rights, this time from a form which the defendant signed. When asked what he was doing in the bushes, he replied he was looking for a job. Thereafter, he said he was sleeping. He also stated that he had gotten the handcuffs from his brother and that he had walked to the airport from Baisley Park and 150th Street.
After processing, Clemens brought the defendant to the New York Police Department's 112th Precinct and turned him over to Cahill of the Queens Career Criminal Unit. Cahill interviewed both Clemens and Santora. He read the defendant his rights from a printed sheet which was signed by the defendant, Cahill and Clemens as witnesses. Thereafter, defendant initially stated that he decided to go for a walk in the airport, got tired and went to sleep in the bushes. The police woke him up. He then stated he did not walk but was driven by someone named Devine. He told Cahill that the handcuffs were obtained from his 19-year old brother. Following the interview, Cahill had the defendant remove his jacket and sweatshirt, which he vouchered. Prior to the interview, Cahill obtained his Career Criminal Investigation Unit file, which only indicated the number of arrests but not the dates and dispositions and, therefore, was unaware of any current pending arrests. After the interview and prior to arraignment in Criminal Court, Cahill received defendant's rap sheet containing specific information as to prior arrests.
Concerning defendant's statements, each one must be considered separately since they were given at different times to different police officers from different agencies. The statement given to Clemens was given after he had twice been informed of his Miranda warnings, once orally and once from a rights form signed by defendant. Nothing in the evidence before this court indicates that the defendant was abused in any way or coerced into making a statement (CPL 60.45).
As hereinafter discussed, the fact that defendant had been arrested earlier on an unrelated matter has no bearing on the statement taken by Clemens, a Port Authority police officer.
Although alluded to by defense counsel, no evidence was adduced to prove the defendant was arrested or represented by counsel prior to his arrest in this case. The court will, however, take judicial notice of the fact that defendant was arrested on June 18, 1982 in Queens County for attempted burglary since that case is currently pending before this court. Nevertheless, Cahill testified that he was unaware of defendant's prior arrest since the records kept by the Career Criminal Unit of the New York City Police Department only show a suspects name, his NYSIS number and the number of prior arrests, not the dates of those arrests.
Under the rule of law promulgated by the Court of Appeals, in People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 440 N.Y.S.2d 894, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Washington
...908; People v. Bertolo, 102 A.D.2d 193, 216, 478 N.Y.S.2d 19 affd. 65 N.Y.2d 111, 490 N.Y.S.2d 475, 480 N.E.2d 61 People v. Brownlee, 119 Misc.2d 996, 999, 465 N.Y.S.2d 422). Therefore, defendant has failed to make a factual showing sufficient for appellate review of his right to counsel cl......
-
People v. Heller
...unrelated charge. This rule has never been held to apply, however, where the prior charge is no longer pending (cf. People v. Brownlee, 119 Misc.2d 996, 465 N.Y.S.2d 422), and, indeed, all of the cases discussing it refer to a prior unrelated pending charge (see, e.g., People v. Hawkins, 55......