People v. Buchta

• Decision Date: 02 April 1992
• Citation: 182 A.D.2d 853,581 N.Y.S.2d 923
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald S. BUCHTA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 923

581 N.Y.S.2d 923

182 A.D.2d 853

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald S. BUCHTA, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

April 2, 1992.

Robert M. O'Leary (Julie M. Sullivan, Law Intern), Binghamton, for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, Dist. Atty. (Joann Rose Parry, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, CREW and CASEY, JJ.

MERCURE, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered January 22, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the third degree.

Defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted on two counts of arson in the third degree and three counts of burglary in the third degree, arising out of incidents in the City of Binghamton and the Village of Johnson City in Broome County. Following a hearing, County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress certain physical and identification evidence and oral and written statements. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to arson in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 6 to 12 years. Defendant now appeals.

There should be an affirmance. Initially, we agree with County Court that defendant's initial detention was lawful. It was developed at the suppression hearing that shortly before midnight on April 5, 1989, Barbara Hobarth arrived for work at the Home Insurance Company building in Binghamton. As she approached the rear door of the building, she saw a man standing inside and noticed that the glass of the door had been broken. Upon seeing Hobarth, the man exited the building and ran from the scene. Hobarth immediately called the police and described the intruder as a young white clean-shaven male, wearing a waist-length blue-grey ski jacket and blue jeans. Fitting that description, defendant was observed by a police officer within minutes of the occurrence on a nearly deserted street a short distance from the scene of the burglary. When asked for identification, defendant could produce none. Under the circumstances, the initial detention of defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion founded on "articulable facts, credible objective evidence, and the rational inferences that flow therefrom" (People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 243, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861; see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 113, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 324 N.E.2d 872; People v. Alleyne, 136 A.D.2d 552, 523 N.Y.S.2d 170, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 892, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 523 N.E.2d 308).

Moreover, following Hobarth's viewing of defendant and statement that she was "90% sure" that he was the man she had encountered, defendant's subsequent nonarrest detention, including his transportation to the crime scene and the police station, "was within the bounds of a lawful investigatory stop" (People v. Pinkney, 156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 226, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 870, 553 N.Y.S.2d 302, 552 N.E.2d 881; see, People v. Booker, 158 A.D.2d 700, 701, 552 N.Y.S.2d 150). We find that the nonarrest detention was "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference" and assisted the police in pursuing "a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly" ( People v. Hicks, supra, 68 N.Y.2d at 241, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861).

We likewise reject the claim that County Court should have suppressed any oral statements made by defendant prior to the administration of Miranda warnings at the police station. The investigatory detention of defendant did not "constitute a restraint on his * * * freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest" (...