People v. Febus
| Decision Date | 12 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2004-00767. |
| Citation | 783 N.Y.S.2d 55,11 A.D.3d 554,2004 NY Slip Op 07325 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. THOMAS FEBUS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to police subsequent to the search and seizure of controlled substances from his person are denied.
On February 10, 2003, at approximately 11:15 P.M., the arresting officer was on routine motor patrol in a "high drug prone location" when he observed the defendant standing alone on a street corner looking down "into his right hand." From five feet away, the officer observed a plastic bag containing smaller pink ziploc bags in the defendant's right hand. The officer, who had spent over a year in the Street Narcotics Enforcement Unit and made over 50 arrests for possession of cocaine or heroin, was familiar with common methods of packaging cocaine and heroin.
The defendant looked at the officer with a "startled look on his face" and shoved the bags into the right pocket of his jacket. The arresting officer exited the vehicle, approached the defendant, and asked the defendant what he put into his pocket. The defendant replied "nothing." The officer then put his hand into the defendant's pocket and recovered 42 ziploc bags of cocaine and a black plastic bag containing 40 glassines of heroin.
The hearing court found that the officer's observation of the defendant with a plastic bag containing pink ziploc bags in his right hand activated the common-law right to inquire, permitting the officer to ask pointed questions (see People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). The hearing court further found that once the defendant "lied about possessing" the ziploc bags the officer "clearly" had "reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant" was "engaging in criminal behavior" but lacked probable cause to search his person.
On appeal, the defendant acknowledges that the officer, "under the facts as found,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bellamy
...the only inquiry that the officers posed to him, i.e., whether Bellamy lived in the Buckingham building. Cf. People v. Febus, 11 A.D.3d 554, 783 N.Y.S.2d 55, 55 (2004) (reasonable suspicion existed where defendant answered "nothing," when asked what he put in his pocket after an officer obs......
-
People v. Roger
...of the officer's investigation[.]” People v. Hollman, supra . at 185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 621 (1992); See also: People v. Febus, 11 AD3d 554, 783 N.Y.S.2d 55 (2nd Dept.2004)app. dis. 4 NY3d 743, 790 N.Y.S.2d 656 (2004); Matter of Robert C., 185 A.D.2d 313, 586 N.Y.S.2d 275 (2nd Dept.1992) Thi......
-
In re Jaquan M.
...cases on which the presentment agency and the dissent rely in arguing that similar lies can create probable cause, People v. Febus, 11 A.D.3d 554, 783 N.Y.S.2d 55 [2004]lv. dismissed4 N.Y.3d 743, 790 N.Y.S.2d 656, 824 N.E.2d 57 [2004] and People v. Scott–Heron, 11 A.D.3d 364, 783 N.Y.S.2d 3......
-
People v. Williams
...cause to believe that the defendant [had committed a burglary], justifying the search and arrest" of defendant ( People v. Febus, 11 A.D.3d 554, 556, 783 N.Y.S.2d 55, lv. dismissed4 N.Y.3d 743, 790 N.Y.S.2d 656, 824 N.E.2d 57; see People v. Abad, 279 A.D.2d 358, 719 N.Y.S.2d 86, lv. denied ......