People v. Howell
| Citation | 78 Misc.2d 538,357 N.Y.S.2d 828 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Earl HOWELL, Defendant. --25 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1974 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Mario Merola, Dist. Atty., Bronx County by Sheri Feldman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for People.
Goldberger, Feldman & Breitbart by David Breitbart, New York City, for defendant.
The court granted reargument after a hearing and rendered a decision on the defendant's motion to suppress two weapons--the unlawful possession of which the defendant is charged in an indictment.
In this case the defendant is charged with possession of two weapons--one found in the car in which he was an occupant and the other on his person when he was searched as an incident to an alleged lawful arrest.
The defendant moved to suppress these two weapons on the grounds that they were unlawfully obtained since the police at the time of the arrest did not have probable cause to stop the car in question, therefore the ensuing arrest and search which the police conducted was without legal sanction.
In support of defendant's contention reliance is placed heavily and the thrust of his argument is based upon the court's decision in Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306. In that case the police officers received a radio report that there was a warrant issued calling for the arrest of the defendant. The officers relying upon that information arrested the defendant and conducted a search. Later it developed that the warrant was invalid. The court held that since the warrant was invalid the probable cause required by law to make the arrest was non-existent, therefore the search conducted, as well as the evidence obtained were without lawful authority.
This court finds from the evidence adduced at the hearing before it that the decision in Whiteley v. Warden (supra) is not applicable and determinative of the issue in the instant case for each is founded upon an entirely different premise.
Here the arresting officer prior to commencing his tour of duty observed a picture on a 'Wanted Poster' in the precinct house. Later while on duty in a patrol car, which was stopped at a traffic light, he saw a man in a car facing in the opposite direction and from a distance of about 25 feet, who he testified 'looked like' and 'he believed' was the person-wanted--as he recalled the photo he had seen earlier at the station house. Thereupon he directed the driver of the patrol car to turn around and stop the other car in which the defendant here was the driver.
The provisions of Section 401 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York grant extremely broad powers and authority to the Police with regard to a statutory right to stop at any time any motor vehicle operating in this state. This section also creates an exception to the general rule that a police officer must have probable cause to stop an individual.
See: People v. Hoffman, 24 A.D.2d 497, 261 N.Y.S.2d 651; People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baldanza
...709, 314 N.E.2d 39, mod. on other grounds 35 N.Y.2d 708, 361 N.Y.S.2d 641, 320 N.E.2d 274; People v. Miller, supra; People v. Howell, 78 Misc.2d 538, 357 N.Y.S.2d 828, affd. 51 A.D.2d 1105, 382 N.Y.S.2d 213). With the aid of a flashlight, Officer Jahn observed, in plain view, most of a clea......
-
People v. Miller
...Appeals said, '(S)hining the Flashlight about the interior of the car was not an unreasonable intrusion.' Accord, People v. Howell, 78 Misc.2d 538, 540, 357 N.Y.S.2d 828, 380, Affd., 51 A.D.2d 1105, 382 N.Y.S.2d 213 (1st Dep't If, however, this police activity is deemed a search or seizure ......
-
People v. Westerman
...52 A.D.2d 425, 428-29, 385 N.Y.S.2d 457; People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 370, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39; People v. Howell, 78 Misc.2d 538, 540, 357 N.Y.S.2d 828.) Upon looking into the car, still without entering it, the "police shield" and wallet became visible on the floor of the veh......
-
People v. Caldwell
...gun (People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39; People v. Miller, 52 A.D.2d 425, 385 N.Y.S.2d 457; People v. Howell, 78 Misc.2d 538, 357 N.Y.S.2d 828, affd. 51 A.D.2d 1105, 382 N.Y.S.2d 213). What constitutes probable cause for a search under the 4th Amendment is a dete......