People v. Lent
| Decision Date | 10 November 1980 |
| Citation | 433 N.Y.S.2d 538,105 Misc.2d 831 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. William LENT, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
James A. Zellinger, Asst. Dist. Atty., White Plains, for the people.
Melvin Smith, Yorktown Heights, for defendant.
Defendant is charged in a single count indictment with the possession of a gravity knife 1 on March 26, 1980. A suppression hearing was held on November 6, 1980. The only real issue is whether property seized incidental to a good-faith arrest, based on an arrest warrant which unbeknownst to the officers had been previously vacated, must be suppressed or whether, under the circumstances, there was sufficient probable cause for the arrest and the accompanying search and seizure of the knife. The People called Sgt. Edward Hayes and Police Officers Bart Johnson and John Coons of the Peekskill Police Department; defendant testified on his own behalf. There is no dispute as to the facts.
On March 25, 1980 a felony complaint and warrant of arrest were issued by the Police Court of the City of Albany charging defendant of the violation of Penal Law 135.20, kidnapping second degree, a class "B" felony, for the alleged abduction of the one-year-old daughter of the affiant (and apparently defendant). A teletype advising of the "active warrant kidnapping second degree" was teletyped to and received at Peekskill Headquarters that day. That evening Sgt. Hayes and Police Officer Coons saw defendant's sister-in-law at her home in Peekskill and advised her of the Albany warrant outstanding against defendant. Defendant, who was apparently advised of the officers' visit, called his attorney in Albany later that evening; arrangements were then made for defendant to surrender himself to Albany at approximately 9:00 A.M. the following morning (March 26) in the presence of his attorney. This procedure was followed and between 9:15 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. on March 26, 1980 defendant was booked, the original charge was reduced by Judge Keegan of the Police Court of the City of Albany to the misdemeanor of unlawful imprisonment second degree (Penal Law 135.05), defendant was ROR'd and the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal to October 17, 1980. The warrant of arrest which had been issued the previous day was vacated. Two detectives in Albany stated they would have the warrant cancelled. However, the Peekskill Police Department was not notified of the vacatur of the arrest warrant. Defendant returned to Peekskill.
The arrest warrant was announced on March 26, 1980 at the regularly held roll call for the 4:00 P.M. to midnight shift of the Peekskill Police Department. At approximately 5:45 P.M. Sgt. Hayes observed defendant, whom he knew, 2 in an automobile, stopped him and radioed headquarters for assistance. Police Officers Johnson and Coons responded to his transmission and arrived at the scene; defendant was still seated in the car. Defendant was then ordered out, directed to place his hands on its roof, searched and the subject knife (Exhibit 2 in evidence) seized from his person. No weapons were drawn by the officers. Albany was notified following defendant's arrest, at which point, for the first time, Peekskill authorities were advised that the warrant had, in fact, been vacated earlier.
Defense counsel argues that as the arrest warrant was concededly not outstanding at the time of defendant's arrest the concomitant search was improper and the fruits of the search must be suppressed. Both sides were given the opportunity of submitting legal authorities in support of their respective positions. Defense counsel contends that under CPL 120.90 a defendant who is arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest must be brought without unnecessary delay before the local criminal court (here, Albany) where the warrant is returnable; that when the Peekskill police learned there was no outstanding warrant subsequent to defendant's arrest and search the provisions of CPL 120.90 could not be followed; hence the initial arrest was invalid under the statute.
In People v. Walls, 35 N.Y.2d 419, 363 N.Y.S.2d 82, 321 N.E.2d 875, two New York City police officers pursued and arrested defendants on the New Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel. Defendants argued, inter alia, that evidence seized from them should be suppressed as the New York officers failed to comply with an applicable New Jersey "fresh pursuit statute", which required prompt arraignment before a New Jersey Magistrate and extradition proceedings in New Jersey. The Court denied suppression stating as follows at page 424:
"For similar reasons we are not persuaded by the defendants' argument that the evidence should be suppressed because it was not seized incident to an authorized arrest. This is not a case where the officers acted without probable cause or wilfully neglected to complete the post-arrest procedures required by New Jersey law. On the contrary, when they arrested the defendants and returned them to New York they reasonably-although mistakenly-believed they were authorized to act as they did. Under these circumstances, the arrest and incidental search were valid (cf. Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484)".
The Court rejects defendant's reasoning regarding non-compliance with CPL 120.90.
There is no claim on the part of the defense there was any bad faith by the Peekskill or Albany Police Departments. Rather, defendant asserts that by reason of Albany's failure to notify the Peekskill Police Department prior to defendant's apprehension, his subsequent arrest and the accompanying search and seizure must fall. The prosecution counters with the argument that all police officers acted in good faith and the Peekskill authorities had ample probable cause under the teletyped notification of the arrest warrant received on March 25, 1980 to arrest defendant in the City of Peekskill and to search him as an incident to that arrest. The Court would note that the delay in notification in this case is relatively brief-being only a part of one day.
Surprisingly there does not appear to be any case law directly in point. However, there are analogous decisions which are persuasive on this subject. In People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210, 366 N.Y.S.2d 622, 326 N.E.2d 294, police authorities of Seneca County received a telephone communication on June 16, 1972 at 10:30 P.M. from a person who identified himself as a detective from the Lancaster, Pennsylvania Police Department, advising them that weapons and stolen property were being transported in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Watson
...17, 1980 based on a "wanted" card which was subsequently discovered to have been canceled, Criminal Term relied on People v. Lent, 105 Misc.2d 831, 433 N.Y.S.2d 538 and held that although the detective did eventually learn that the wanted card was invalid, his search of the defendant was ma......
-
People v. Mitchell, 83SA224
...as the mistakes are of reasonable persons, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability); People v. Lent, 105 Misc.2d 831, 433 N.Y.S.2d 538 (1980) (police had probable cause to arrest and search the defendant; mere fact that unknown to them the warrant had been vacat......
-
Green v. State
...suppressed in civil tax case which was seized based on an insufficient supporting affidavit to the search warrant); People v. Lent, 433 N.Y.S.2d 538 (Misc.2d Sup.1980) (teletyped arrest warrant subsequently held invalid; however, the good faith action of police officers prevented suppressio......
-
People v. Ramirez
...to the level of police administrative negligence fatal to the government in Mackey." (Id. at p. 618, fn. 3; see also People v. Lent (1980) 105 Misc.2d 831, 433 N.Y.S.2d 538.) It is surprising, in this age of computerized data processing, that the issue of the validity of an arrest made on e......