People v. Letriz

• Decision Date: 07 February 2013
• Citation: 103 A.D.3d 446,962 N.Y.S.2d 1,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00804
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose LETRIZ, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 446
962 N.Y.S.2d 1
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00804

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jose LETRIZ, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 7, 2013.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), and White & Case LLP, New York (Peter E. Moran of counsel), for appellant.

[962 N.Y.S.2d 2]

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Naomi C. Reed of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, RENWICK, CLARK, JJ.

[103 A.D.3d 446]Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered April 29, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police acted on information provided by an informant during a face-to-face encounter, which permitted the officers to observe the informant's agitated demeanor ( see People v. Colon, 95 A.D.3d 420, 942 N.Y.S.2d 542 [1st Dept. 2012], lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1025, 953 N.Y.S.2d 558, 978 N.E.2d 110 [2012]; citing People v. Appice, 1 A.D.3d 244, 767 N.Y.S.2d 765 [1st Dept. 2003], lv. denied1 N.Y.3d 594, 776 N.Y.S.2d 226, 808 N.E.2d 362 [2004] ). In a subway station, the informant told the police a man had just tampered with a MetroCard vending machine. The informant pointed to the machine, followed the police outside the station, and pointed out defendant. However, the informant left the scene without identifying himself. The circumstances of the interaction warranted the inference that the informant had personally observed defendant engaging in criminal mischief, thereby enhancing the statement's reliability ( see People v. Wallace, 89 A.D.3d 559, 560, 933 N.Y.S.2d 13 [1st Dept. 2011], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 963, 944 N.Y.S.2d 492, 967 N.E.2d 717 [2012] ).

[103 A.D.3d 447]This information provided the officers with reasonable suspicion that justified stopping defendant. Furthermore, the limitation on defendant's freedom of movement was minimal. The officers simply informed defendant of the accusation and requested or directed him to follow them back into the subway station. Even assuming this to be a seizure ( but see People v. Francois, 61 A.D.3d 524, 525, 877 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2009], affd.14 N.Y.3d 732, 896 N.Y.S.2d 300, 923 N.E.2d 583 [2010] ), it was justified by the information available to the police, regardless of whether the same information might have justified a more intrusive action, such as a gunpoint seizure or an immediate frisk.

The police observed that the MetroCard machine had been disabled by jamming something into it, which corroborated the informant's accusation. The police now had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal mischief. Although defendant asserts that there were innocent explanations for the condition of the...