People v. Caba
| Decision Date | 09 November 2010 |
| Citation | 910 N.Y.S.2d 373,78 A.D.3d 857 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. Alexis CABA and Lameek Stanton, respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Joyce Slevin of counsel), for appellant.
Edwin Ira Schulman, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for respondents.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Ingram, J.), dated December 14, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted those branches ofthe defendants' omnibus motions which were to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, those branches of the defendants' omnibus motions which were to suppress physical evidence are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
The Supreme Court improperly granted those branches of the defendants' omnibus motions which were to suppress physical evidence on the ground that the police officers did not have probable cause to pursue and arrest them. Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, once the police officers witnessed the defendants trespassing into a park owned and operated by the City of New York, the entrance of which had a posted sign indicating that the park closed several hours earlier at dusk, they had probable cause to issue them summonses for committing a violation and/or arrest them for misdemeanors ( see 56 RCNY 1-03 [a][3]; 1-07[a], [c] ). The officers were thus entitled to pursue and arrest the defendants when they fled after trespassing into the park in the officers' presence ( see CPL 140.10[1][a]; People v. Canty, 55 A.D.3d 330, 864 N.Y.S.2d 426; People v. Simms, 25 A.D.3d 425, 808 N.Y.S.2d 64). Since the pursuit was justified, the defendants' abandonment of weapons during the pursuit was not precipitated by any illegal police conduct ( see People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444, 448-449, 591 N.Y.S.2d 823, 606 N.E.2d 951; People v. Shippy, 53 A.D.3d 590, 861 N.Y.S.2d 779; People v. Woods, 281 A.D.2d 570, 722 N.Y.S.2d 55, affd. 98 N.Y.2d 627, 745 N.Y.S.2d 749, 772 N.E.2d 1107; see also People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 110, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207). Consequently, the hearing court erred in granting those branches of the defendants' omnibus motions which were to suppress the weapons.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Anderson
...expectation of privacy in it ( see People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 110, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207; People v. Caba, 78 A.D.3d 857, 858, 910 N.Y.S.2d 373; People v. Jenkins, 66 A.D.3d 800, 886 N.Y.S.2d 348; People v. Amuso, 44 A.D.3d 781, 783, 843 N.Y.S.2d 395; cf. People v.......
-
People v. Henry
...1332, 158 N.Y.S.3d 436 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 926, 164 N.Y.S.3d 19, 184 N.E.3d 840 [2022] ; People v. Caba , 78 A.D.3d 857, 858, 910 N.Y.S.2d 373 [2d Dept. 2010], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1096, 965 N.Y.S.2d 792, 988 N.E.2d 530 [2013]; see generally CPL 1.20 [39] ; 140.10 [2]; Pena......
-
People v. Henry
... ... defendant was not lawfully present on the property on which ... his vehicle was partially parked, which gave them probable ... cause to place him under arrest for trespass (see People ... v Davis, 199 A.D.3d 1331, 1332 [4th Dept 2021], lv ... denied 38 N.Y.3d 926 [2022]; People v Caba, 78 ... A.D.3d 857, 858 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d ... 1096 [2013]; see generally CPL 1.20 [39]; 140.10 ... [2]; Penal Law § 140.05). Because the officers' ... arrest of defendant was justified, defendant's subsequent ... deliberate abandonment of contraband while forcibly resisting ... ...
-
United States v. Witty
...posted on the night of the arrest that was "visible to [the plaintiff] or the officers, or in legible condition"); People v. Caba, 910 N.Y.S.2d 373, at *1 (App. Div. 2010) ("[O]nce the police officers witnessed the defendants trespassing into a park owned and operated by the City of New Yor......