People v. Faller

• Decision Date: 07 June 2005
• Docket Number: 6257.
• Citation: 19 A.D.3d 138,796 N.Y.S.2d 349,2005 NY Slip Op 04485
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAY FALLER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

19 A.D.3d 138

796 N.Y.S.2d 349

2005 NY Slip Op 04485

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAY FALLER, Appellant.

6257.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

June 7, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered August 11, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 years, 12 years and 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. The circumstantial evidence establishes that the officers who stopped, for the second time, the car in which defendant was a passenger, were relying on a radio transmission by another officer who had stopped the car a short time before (see People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909 [1998]; People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99, 113-114 [1996]; People v McCormick, 302 AD2d 258 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 540 [2003]). After making the initial stop, the first officer had learned of a robbery committed by two black males about six feet tall wearing North Face black jackets, and had realized that this matched defendant and one other person in the car. The transmission relied upon by the second set of officers contained a description of three black males wearing black jackets, and also included the type of car and a partial New Jersey plate number. This description matched defendant and the car in which he was a passenger. After being stopped the second time, defendant fled, and the second set of officers sent out a radio transmission indicating the fleeing suspect, as well as the street and direction he was fleeing. Yet another officer proceeded to that location and saw defendant, the only black male on the street at the time, running in a manner that forced people out of his way. This officer stopped defendant, who was then taken nearby for a showup identification by the victim of the robbery.

These facts gave rise to, at least, reasonable suspicion for the second stop and ultimate detention of defendant for the purpose of conducting a showup, which occurred a short time after and in close proximity to the robbery (see People v Rampersant, 272 AD2d 202 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 870 [2000]), and resulted in defendant's identification and lawful arrest. Defendant did not preserve his present contention that there was insufficient testimony to determine...