People v. Howard
| Decision Date | 16 November 1978 |
| Citation | 411 N.Y.S.2d 12,65 A.D.2d 714 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Archie William HOWARD a/k/a William Archie Howard, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A. D. Marrus, New York City, for appellant.
H. Winestine, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and BIRNS, FEIN, MARKEWICH and SANDLER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 5, 1978, granting the defendant-respondent's motion to suppress physical evidence pursuant to CPL Sec. 710.20, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and the motion to suppress denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed.
Two police officers in plainclothes and in an unmarked car in a high crime area observed the defendant carrying a small piece of luggage variously described as a woman's vanity case or a square lunch box. Because he looked suspicious, one of the officers came abreast of him, displayed his police shield and said "police officer, I would like to speak to you". The defendant ignored the police, and when they repeated the statement, the defendant began to run and climbed an iron fence, with one of the police officers in pursuit. A civilian also joined the chase and followed the defendant into a basement where he saw him throw the bag into a corner among some old furniture. The defendant then ran to the opposite wall and tried to escape through a small window. The civilian held him until the police arrived. The officer could not find the bag, but the civilian pointed to it, and when the officer opened it, he discovered a large amount of heroin in glassine envelopes and a revolver.
The officers' actions were proper throughout the entire incident, and the motion to suppress should have been denied. Under the circumstances heretofore disclosed, the police were entitled to pursue the defendant. People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101, 308 N.Y.S.2d 836, 257 N.E.2d 23; People v. Archiopoli, 39 A.D.2d 748, 332 N.Y.S.2d 166. Further, there was an abandonment of the bag. People v. Brown, 40 A.D.2d 527, 333 N.Y.S.2d 791.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Howard
...area, and that there had been no abandonment. The Appellate Division reversed on both grounds, "on the law and the facts" (65 A.D.2d 714, 411 N.Y.S.2d 12). Since reversal was not on the law alone defendant's application for permission to appeal was dismissed (46 N.Y.2d 1080, 416 N.Y.S.2d 10......
-
People v. Barshai
...flight. The later decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 430 N.Y.S.2d 578, 408 N.E.2d 908, rev'g 65 A.D.2d 714, 411 N.Y.S.2d 12, an authority heavily relied upon by the defendant, in no way invalidates the reasonableness of such a judgment on the part of defens......