People v. LaFontaine
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BELLACOSA; KAYE |
| Citation | 682 N.Y.S.2d 671,92 N.Y.2d 470,705 N.E.2d 663 |
| Parties | , 705 N.E.2d 663, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,723 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sixto LaFONTAINE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1998 |
Page 671
N.Y. Slip Op. 10,723
v.
Sixto LaFONTAINE, Appellant.
Page 672
Lori Shellenberger, and Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (David M. Cohn and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
BELLACOSA, J.
This is a defendant's appeal to this Court from an order sustaining a trial court denial of suppression of evidence and affirming an ensuing conviction on a guilty plea. We agree with the Appellate Division majority and dissent only to the extent that they unanimously reject the authority of the New Jersey police officers to execute New Jersey or Federal arrest warrants in New York State, under the circumstances presented by this case. Because that resolution removes the only reviewable predicate for a lawful arrest, a reversal is mandated.
The People, as respondent in this Court and at the Appellate Division, offer alternative grounds for the lawfulness of the arrest, and for an affirmance result. We are constrained, however, to reverse the Appellate Division order affirming defendant's conviction, and to remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings. In the unusual procedural posture of this case, the alternative grounds proffered here, and utilized at the Appellate Division, are beyond the statutory review powers of each tribunal.
Defendant was arrested on the fire escape outside his New York City apartment by four police officers of the City of Paterson, New Jersey. They possessed New Jersey and Federal arrest warrants for crimes committed in New Jersey at some prior time. Two of the officers knocked on the apartment door and identified themselves as police. This announcement apparently precipitated defendant's flight to the fire escape, where he was ultimately apprehended by a third officer stationed outside and one floor below. Immediately after the arrest, the officers entered defendant's apartment, where they observed and seized plastic bags of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Defendant and the contraband were turned over to the New York City Police Department.
The District Attorney of New York County indicted defendant on two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1], [12] ) and one count of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.50). Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment as the fruit of an unlawful arrest.
Following a suppression hearing, Supreme Court denied the motion (159 Misc.2d 751, 603 N.Y.S.2d 660). The trial court determined that, although the New Jersey officers lacked authority to execute their State's arrest warrant in New York, they licitly executed the Federal warrant here. Because the arrest was found lawful, the evidence was also deemed justifiably seized under the plain view exception. Defendant then pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed the conviction and upheld the denial of suppression, but on a different basis (235 A.D.2d 93, 664 N.Y.S.2d 587). The majority rejected the trial court's conclusion that the officers were authorized to execute the Federal arrest warrant in New York. Instead, in a thorough opinion, it sustained the denial of suppression on an alternative ground--that the New Jersey police effected an authorized citizen's arrest pursuant to CPL 570.34, a ground explicitly rejected by Supreme Court. One of the dissenting Justices at the Appellate Division
Page 673
granted defendant leave to appeal to this Court. The correspondingly thorough dissenting opinion would have reversed, rejected all arguments in favor of the arrest, and suppressed the evidence (235 A.D.2d 93, 100-109, 664 N.Y.S.2d 587, supra ).The People try to rebut the thrust of defendant's appeal in this Court by again tendering a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Concepcion
...N.Y.3d 194] [953 N.E.2d 780] OPINION OF THE COURTREAD, J. The outcome of this appeal is dictated by our decision in People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 (1998). There, Supreme Court denied suppression of plastic bags of cocaine and drug paraphernalia seized ......
-
People v. Barthel, 493
...explicitly founded the verdict exclusively upon a legal theory other than constructive possession (see generally People v. LaFontaine , 92 N.Y.2d 470, 474, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 [1998], rearg denied 93 N.Y.2d 849, 688 N.Y.S.2d 495, 710 N.E.2d 1094 [1999] ). In this case, however,......
-
People v. Argyris
...aspects of such a potential claim, including any preservation issues and the possibility of a LaFontaine issue (see People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 [1998] ) arising from County Court's express rejection of the notion that the traffic violation, without ......
-
People v. Demarco, 2017–12806
...260 N.E.2d 815 ; United States v. Polito, 583 F.2d at 51 ; United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1167–1168 ; People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 ). However, the arrest warrants referenced in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are either signed ......
-
People v. Concepcion
...N.Y.3d 194] [953 N.E.2d 780] OPINION OF THE COURTREAD, J. The outcome of this appeal is dictated by our decision in People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 (1998). There, Supreme Court denied suppression of plastic bags of cocaine and drug paraphernalia seized ......
-
People v. Barthel, 493
...explicitly founded the verdict exclusively upon a legal theory other than constructive possession (see generally People v. LaFontaine , 92 N.Y.2d 470, 474, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 [1998], rearg denied 93 N.Y.2d 849, 688 N.Y.S.2d 495, 710 N.E.2d 1094 [1999] ). In this case, however,......
-
People v. Argyris
...aspects of such a potential claim, including any preservation issues and the possibility of a LaFontaine issue (see People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 [1998] ) arising from County Court's express rejection of the notion that the traffic violation, without ......
-
People v. Demarco, 2017–12806
...260 N.E.2d 815 ; United States v. Polito, 583 F.2d at 51 ; United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1167–1168 ; People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663 ). However, the arrest warrants referenced in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are either signed ......