People v. John BB
| Decision Date | 18 June 1981 |
| Citation | 81 A.D.2d 188,440 N.Y.S.2d 387 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. JOHN BB * and Stephen CC *, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David Cohen, Liberty, for John BB, appellant.
Kleinman & Rosenberg, Liberty (Abraham Kleinman, Liberty, of counsel), for Stephen CC, appellant.
Joseph Jaffe, Dist. Atty., Monticello (Frank J. Labuda, Monticello, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HERLIHY, JJ.
On December 19, 1979, the New York State Police became aware that about 40 burglaries of vacant summer cottages had occurred in the remote, sparsely populated area of the Anawanda-Tennanah Lake region of Sullivan County.
Investigator Connors undertook a surveillance of the area on December 21, 1979, commencing with a report at about 6:00 P. M. on that date that a vehicle was observed in the area. Investigation of that report resulted in a vehicle being stopped and it being ascertained that the operator was generally employed as a caretaker of several of the cottages. Thereafter, the investigator stopped all cars that he found in the area and interviewed all people in the area. At about 9:30 P. M., the defendant Stephen CC's car approached the investigator's unmarked police car from its rear and after stopping for a few seconds it proceeded past at a slow rate of speed. The investigator radioed in the license plate number for a check on ownership and notified two other policemen in the area to meet him at a specified intersection where he would stop Stephen CC's car.
It appears that one of the troopers with a marked police car pulled beside and forward of Stephen CC's car with the lights flashing while Connors pulled up close behind the car and the other policeman upon arrival pulled alongside the car.
In response to a demand by Trooper De Rosia for his driver's license and automobile registration, Stephen CC exited from the vehicle with the requested documents. As he was out of the vehicle with the door open, Connors looked inside with his flashlight and observed a rifle case protruding from under the front seat of the vehicle as well as several flashlights on the vehicle floor. Connors promptly ordered the three passengers out of the vehicle (one of them was defendant John BB) and then seized the rifle case. When opened, the case revealed a pellet gun.
Stephen CC was asked where he got the gun and he responded that he had bought it and a pair of speakers from a friend. It was then learned that the speakers were in the trunk of the vehicle. When questioned, the occupants gave conflicting stories of their activities in the area. One said they were joyriding; another said they were returning from Binghamton. The officer knew that a pellet gun had been stolen from one of the nearby burglarized houses. The officer had also seen flashlights in the car, which are often used in burglaries.
Further, when asked about the ownership of the pellet gun, defendant said it and the speakers in the trunk belonged to him but he could not remember the name of the friend who sold them to him. Additionally, the officer also knew that speakers had been among the recently stolen items. The above circumstances, coupled with defendants' proximity to the crime scene and their suspicious stopping and starting when they saw the unmarked police car, combined to give the policeman probable cause to believe that the speakers in the trunk were fruits of the past burglaries and justified opening the trunk without permission.
Defendants were not formally arrested, but Connors ordered them taken to the barracks and after waiving their Miranda rights they submitted to interrogation and eventually confessed to committing several burglaries, admitting that the speakers in the car had been stolen.
After being indicted on charges of several counts of burglary, defendants moved to suppress their confessions and the evidence seized from Stephen CC's vehicle at the initial stop on December 21, 1979. Following the denial of that motion, defendants pleaded guilty to reduced charges of attempted burglary, were adjudicated youthful offenders, and now appeal the dismissal of the motion to suppress. Defendant Stephen CC also questions his sentence as harsh and excessive.
At the outset, the record establishes that both Stephen CC and John BB were duly given their Miranda warnings before their confessions were made, and upon review there is no basis for concluding that the confessions were the result of physical violence or unwarranted threats. The central issues are the legality of the seizure of evidence from Stephen CC's vehicle and the subsequent detention of defendants for the purpose of interrogation.
Defendants contend that the initial stop of Stephen CC's vehicle was illegal and invalidates the seizure of the pellet gun and the speakers. The evidence, as developed at the suppression hearing, establishes that the determination of the police to stop Stephen CC's vehicle was in accord with a nondiscriminatory uniform procedure adopted to facilitate the acquisition of information which might lead to a resolution of the recent burglaries. As described in the record, the area was too large for ordinary surveillance. It does not appear that the utilization of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spencer
...the Appellate Division, the defendant's vehicle was surrounded by three troop cars at the side, front and rear (see, People v. John BB., 81 A.D.2d 188, 189, 440 N.Y.S.2d 387). Given the urgency of gathering fresh information on the violent felon's then whereabouts as previously described, t......
-
People v. John BB
...in the second degree (Penal Law, §§ 110.00, 140.25, subd. 1) and were adjudicated youthful offenders. The Appellate Division, 81 A.D.2d 188, 440 N.Y.S.2d 387, upheld the validity of the roving roadblock and affirmed the judgment of the court below. We agree with the Appellate Division's det......
-
People v. Palmer
...535, 439 N.Y.S.2d 96, 421 N.E.2d 491 [1981], cert denied 454 U.S. 898, 102 S.Ct. 399, 70 L.Ed.2d 214 [1981] ; see People v. John BB., 81 A.D.2d 188, 192, 440 N.Y.S.2d 387 [1981], affd 56 N.Y.2d 482, 453 N.Y.S.2d 158, 438 N.E.2d 864 [1982], cert denied 459 U.S. 1010, 103 S.Ct. 365, 74 L.Ed.2......
-
People v. Watson
...in the Wipper incident (see, CPL 140.50; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 220, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. John BB., 81 A.D.2d 188, 440 N.Y.S.2d 387, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 482, 453 N.Y.S.2d 158, 438 N.E.2d 864, cert. denied 459 U.S. 1010, 103 S.Ct. 365, 74 L.Ed.2d 400). Furthermo......