People v. Manzi
| Decision Date | 11 February 1963 |
| Citation | 38 Misc.2d 114,237 N.Y.S.2d 738 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Michael MANZI, Michael Emeric, Clement Delvitt, Daniel Espinet, Gilbert Valez, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., by Maurice Nadjari, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.
Laureano & Margulies, by M. Margulies, New York City, for defendant Manzi.
Levine & Cowen, by Irving Levine, New York City, for all other defendants.
A hearing has been held on the motion made by all five defendants to suppress the articles taken by the police out of the automobile of defendant Delvitt. The indictments charging the several defendants with various counts of grand larceny, criminally buying and receiving stolen property, and criminally concealing and withholding stolen and wrongfully acquired property, were consolidated for the purpose of this motion. Defendants offered no evidence of their own but based their contention as to the alleged illegality of the procurement of the seized articles on their legal interpretation of the testimony given by the participating police officer, though questioning his credibility in some respects.
The undisputed testimony is that the attention of police officers on night patrol was attracted to three men walking along the curb of Vanderbilt Avenue near 46th Street and looking at the parked cars; that they saw one of the men kick in the window of the door of one of the cars, open the door and start to get into the car; and that they immediately apprehended and arrested these men. No question is raised concerning the authenticity of this occurrence. The police officer gave the names of these men and testified that they were subsequently charged with attempted grand larceny. Defendants' counsel conceded 'that the officer had cause to arrest the man who broke into the car.' Thus, there is no claim in this case that entry into defendant Delvitt's car was obtained by trickery or subterfuge or that the incident starting the chain of events resulting in the seizure of incriminating evidence was a fictitious pretext.
The officer testified that, looking in through the side window of the car, he saw what appeared to be a number of packages or bulky articles, only partially covered by the type of blanket used in a moving van. He decided that, for the purpose of safeguarding this property in view of its vulnerability to theft by reason of the broken window, as well as for the purpose of holding it, at least until claimed by the owner, as evidence against the persons arrested, it should be taken to the precinct. A policeman was requested by the patrolling officers to await the owner's return, and to inform him to claim the property at the precinct. Since circumstances might arise to require the policeman to leave the immediate scene, it was deemed necessary to bring the property to the precinct.
Such action on the part of police officers is reasonably embraced within the Rules and Regulations of the Police Department of the City of New York, setting forth their duties with respect to property to be held in custody, such as lost, stolen or abandoned property or property required as evidence or taken from a prisoner, etc. Though this precise situation does not appear to be referred to in the Rules and Regulations, it is clearly a valid exercise of a proper police function to protect property when rendered unsafe by force of circumstances.
The officer testified that, when he leaned over the front seat after opening the door, he could see that one of the packages was an open case without a cover or top, containing three or four dissimilar bottles of liquor. All of the articles were removed and taken to the precinct. In addition to this open case, there were two portable television sets, two stands apparently belonging to the television sets, and miscellaneous canned food in two-gallon cans. After he arrived at the precinct, he saw in open view, 'under the lights of the house,' that the liquor bottles in the open case had white labels stating 'Bar 1' or 'Bar 2' pasted on them.
Since this was a hotel district, the officer came to the conclusion that these miscellaneous bottles of liquor came from two bars of a hotel apparently designated for inventory purposes as Bar 1 and Bar 2. This circumstance, joined with the fact that the case was an open one, would indicate to an experienced officer that the bottles had been taken from two hotel bars, and in combination with the remaining miscellaneous collection of articles in the car, constituted reasonable ground for a police officer to believe that they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kleinbart v. State, 243
...People v. Lohager, 35 Ill.2d 199, 220 N.E.2d 201 (1966); Machlan v. State, Ind., 225 N.E.2d 762 (1967). Compare with People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1963), aff'd 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1964), and Stewart v. People, Colo., 426 P.2d 545 (b) Standing to Object Prior......
-
State v. Rees
...F.2d 543; United States v. Lee, (4 Cir.), 308 F.2d 715, 717; People v. Elmore, 28 Ill.2d 263, 192 N.E.2d 219, 220; People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738, 741; United States v. Scott, D.C., 149 F.Supp. 837, 841; and State v. Hawkins, 362 Mo. 152, 240 S.W.2d 688, IV. Clearly and u......
-
Alcala v. State
...Evidence, Section 2072, p. 401 (3rd Ed. 1940).2 For other cases see State v. Camper, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 676, 679; People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738, 741; People v. Willard, 238 Cal.App.2d 292, 47 Cal.Rptr. 734, 743; and State v. Allred, 16 Utah 2d 41, 395 P.2d 535, 537.3 It is ......
-
McCutcheon v. State
...footnoted still other citations for this proposition, which citations are: State v. Camper, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 676, 679; People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738, 741; People v. Willard, 238 Cal.App.2d 292, 47 Cal.Rptr. 734, 743; and State v. Allred, 16 Utah 2d 41, 395 P.2d 535, Fully......