People v. Coffey
| Decision Date | 19 September 1962 |
| Citation | 232 N.Y.S.2d 545,36 Misc.2d 67 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Joseph COFFEY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., by Burton B. Roberts and Richard R. Lutz, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel, for The People.
Alfred I. Rosner, New York City, by Martin B. Rosner, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
Defendant was convicted in the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York of burglary in the third degree in connection with the Cartier jewel robbery of June 25, 1960. During the appeal process Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081) was decided. The Court of Appeals found no error in the record but, since the question had been raised that the admission in evidence of proof that some of the stolen diamonds were found as the product of an alleged illegal search and seizure in the pocket of a man riding with defendant in an automobile on August 30, 1960 constituted a violation of the Mapp decision, the court decided that determination of the appeal should be withheld in order that defendant might make a motion in this court to suppress this evidence, with final determination of the appeal to follow such remission (People v. Coffey, 11 N.Y.2d 142, 182 N.E.2d 92, 227 N.Y.S.2d 412). It was stated that a hearing on this sole question, rather than a complete new trial, was appropriate, since evidence obtained by a search incident to a lawful arrest was receivable and there had been presented to the appellate courts 'an affidavit by one of the F.B.I. agents containing statements which if found to be true might be the basis for holding that this search and seizure were incidental to a lawful arrest.'
After making some preliminary motions (see N.Y.L.J., 5/9/62, p. 18, col. 2; 5/29/62, p. 14, col. 4) defendant moved to suppress and the hearing thereon has now been held. The F.B.I. agent, above referred to, as well as the two city detectives who took part in the arrest and search have been fully examined and cross-examined. On the basis of this evidence the court denies the motion to suppress, holding that the search and seizure were incidental to a lawful arrest and therefore the proof that the stolen diamonds were found by F.B.I. agents and the city detectives as testified to at the trial was competently received.
The officers had no search or arrest warrant. Accordingly, the validity of the arrest depends on there being probable cause to make the arrest, that it, reasonable cause of believe that a felony has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it (Code Crim.Pro. § 177). That question is to be decided by consideration of the combination of facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and credible information at the time of making the arrest, since a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up.
The evidence shows that a watchman at the jewelry shop had told the police and F.B.I. that he had seen the thief as he turned and ran to an automobile, which he described as a blue and white Oldsmobile about five years old, and that the thief and the driver appeared to him to be Italians. (At the trial the watchman gave testimony identifying the defendant as the thief, but that, of course, is not to be considered on this motion.) A police teletype alarm, based apparently on a further amplification of the watchman's first-hand description, was promptly broadcast, describing the getaway car as a 1955 hardtop Oldsmobile painted blue and white, and a detective connected with the Burglary Squad, who participated in the capture, testified that he had been looking for such an automobile.
The aforementioned F.B.I. agent testified that about two months after the theft, an informer called him and said that he had information that the Cartier burglary had been perpetrated by persons known as Coffey and Patsy who frequented the Pike Slip area of Manhattan and that, with the help of one Kingdon or Bill DeNormand, they were trying to dispose of the jewels.
The agent testified further that he checked this information with F.B.I. agents whose 'beat' was lower East Side and was advised that these names probably referred to Joseph Coffey, the defendant, and one Pasquale Fuca, and that defendant was known to drive an automobile registered in his brother's name, which was a 1955 blue and white Oldsmobile.
He then checked F.B.I. records concerning these three individuals . All three had criminal records; defendant and Fuca had been arrested together on prior occasions, including one for burglary and possession of burglar's tools; and DeNormand had been arrested in 1943 in a car owned by a relative of defendant.
The agent testified that he then made a luncheon appointment in a restaurant with the informer. The latter identified photographs of the three individuals as the persons referred to by him. He told the agent that the stolen rings had been cut up and that he had seen the stones. The agent asked him to describe the stones, which he proceeded to do in some detail.
To ascertain the present location of the stones, the agent induced the informer to make a telephone call. He entered the booth with the informer and listened in and overheard the entire conversation with 'Bill.' He testified that the conversation concerned attempts to sell the stones, the prices offered and asked, and that a further attempt would be made that night, the arrangements being that 'Bill' would meet Coffey and/or Fuca about 7 P.M. at the Brooklyn Paramount Theatre.
Upon returning to his office the agent checked the informer's description of the stones with that given by a Cartier official at the time of the robbery, and found that there was a substantial correspondence between them, although the official description had never been publicized. He consulted his superiors and then made arrangements for a surveillance operation, inviting the city police to participate therein. Two detectives of the city Burglary Squad accompanied the F.B.I. agents in this 5-car surveillance. They were briefed and shown photographs of the three individuals. The city detectives also gave testimony at the hearing concerning their participation.
Defendant and DeNormand with another man were observed by them at the stated time and place. They saw them enter a 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Estrialgo
...47, 182 A.2d 295; Comm. v. Czajkowski, 198 Pa .Super. 511, 182 A.2d 298; People v. Ward, 32 Misc.2d 843, 223 N.Y.S .2d 355; People v. Coffey, Sup., 232 N.Y.S.2d 545. A parenthetic but perhaps pertinent observation in this latter regard is made by Mr. Justice Jackson in his dissent in Bringa......
-
United States v. Fay
...S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). 2 People v. Coffey, 11 N.Y.2d 142, 227 N.Y.S.2d 412, 182 N.E.2d 92 (1962). 3 People v. Coffey, 36 Misc.2d 67, 232 N.Y.S.2d 545 (Sup.Ct.1962). The full record made before the Trial Judge obviates the necessity for a further hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.......
-
United States v. Fay
...evidence was admissible because it had been seized in the course of a search incident to an arrest upon probable cause. 36 Misc.2d 67, 232 N.Y.S.2d 545 (Sup.Ct.1962). This ruling was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals. 12 N.Y.2d 443, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263 (1963), remittitu......
-
UNITED STATES EX REL. COFFEY v. Follette
...suppress, People v. Coffey, 11 N.Y.2d 142, 227 N.Y.S.2d 412, 182 N.E. 2d 92 (1962). That motion to suppress was denied, 36 Misc.2d 67, 232 N.Y.S.2d 545 (Sup.Ct. 1962); and the denial was affirmed by the Appellate Division, 18 A.D.2d 794, 236 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (1st Dep't 1963), and the Court of ......