People v. Dollison

• Decision Date: 27 November 1995
• Citation: 634 N.Y.S.2d 194,221 A.D.2d 654
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Daymon DOLLISON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 194

634 N.Y.S.2d 194

221 A.D.2d 654

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Daymon DOLLISON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 27, 1995.

Howard R. Teichner, Plainview, for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Robin A. Forshaw, and John J. Orlando, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, MILLER and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered August 20, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony and certain statements made by the defendant to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly found that the defendant's statement and lineup identification were not suppressible as the fruits of an illegal arrest (see, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639). The evidence presented to the hearing court clearly demonstrated that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, CPL 140.10[1][b] ). Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule (see, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637), where probable cause is predicated in whole or part upon the hearsay statement of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the information is reliable and the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge (see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451; People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439). A citizen's reliability is assumed because of the potential penalty which may be imposed if the information provided to the police is fabricated (see, People v. McCain, 134 A.D.2d 623, 521 N.Y.S.2d 517; People v. Phillips, 120 A.D.2d 621, 502 N.Y.S.2d 229). In this case, the arresting officers were provided with detailed factual information which would lead a reasonable person possessing the officers' expertise to determine that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes being investigated (see, People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 698, 594 N.Y.S.2d 679, 610 N.E.2d 352; People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946).

Further, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the hearing court's conclusion that the warrantless entry into the apartment of the defendant's mother was effected with the consent of the defendant's mother (see, People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952, 510 N.Y.S.2d 87, 502 N.E.2d 1002; People v. Green, 212 A.D.2d 630, 624 N.Y.S.2d 838; People v. Daly, 180 A.D.2d 872, 874, 579 N.Y.S.2d 491; People v....