People v. Dennis
| Decision Date | 07 November 1988 |
| Citation | 144 A.D.2d 381,533 N.Y.S.2d 953 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Randy DENNIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Ronkonkoma (Louis E. Mazzola, of counsel), for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead, (Emily A. Constant, of counsel; Peter Saree, on the brief), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, KOOPER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered December 12, 1985, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred when, after a suppression hearing, it failed to suppress certain evidence obtained after the defendant's arrest on January 14, 1985, as well as identification testimony relating to a January 8, 1985, police stop of his vehicle. The defendant asserts that the January 8th stop was unlawful and that the probable cause to arrest him on January 14th was based on evidence and information obtained as a result of that police illegality. We disagree.
On January 8, 1985, an unmarked police car pulled up behind the defendant's vehicle, which was stopped at an intersection and straddling the right-turn and left-turn lanes. Although nothing prevented the vehicle from proceeding, it remained standing at the intersection for approximately 20 seconds, blocking both the intersection and the unmarked police car. This failure to move offered reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128, 1201, and 1202 and justified the police stop of the defendant's vehicle (see, e.g., People v. Allah, 131 A.D.2d 765, 516 N.Y.S.2d 792, lv. denied, 70 N.Y.2d 797, 522 N.Y.S.2d 115, 516 N.E.2d 1228). The stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity and the defendant was permitted to go on his way immediately thereafter. (cf., People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39). Consequently, any information and evidence obtain as a result of the January 8th stop of the defendant was untainted and could help provide probable cause to arrest (see, People v. Sciacca, 78 A.D.2d 545, 432 N.Y.S.2d 90).
The record of the suppression hearing indicates that on January 14, 1985, arresting officer had sufficient information which provided probable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Frank
... ... The defendant's car was lawfully stopped after the officers observed it pass through an intersection without obeying the stop sign controlling traffic (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172[a]; see, People v. Barnes, 144 A.D.2d 371, 533 N.Y.S.2d 923; People v. Dennis, 144 A.D.2d 381, 533 N.Y.S.2d 953; People v. Veryzer, 139 A.D.2d 609, 527 N.Y.S.2d 101). During the brief roadside detention that followed (see, People v. Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746, 523 N.Y.S.2d 915), the officers requested the defendant's license and registration, and inquired about the contents ... ...
-
People v. Sandoval
... ... Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Villanueva, 137 A.D.2d 852, 525 N.Y.S.2d 317). We therefore agree with the determination that the stop was lawful (see, People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39; People v. Dennis, 144 A.D.2d 381, 533 N.Y.S.2d 953). There is similarly no basis for disturbing the Supreme Court's determination to credit the police officer's testimony that, upon the lawful stop, he could see in plain view the butt of a gun protruding from a black bag located on the floor of the front ... ...
- People v. Dennis