People v. Matienzo
| Decision Date | 19 January 1993 |
| Parties | , 609 N.E.2d 138 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sixto MATIENZO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
While stationed in a hidden observation post on the evening of October 12, 1989, Police Officer Brendan Carney saw defendant standing on a street corner in a high-crime area of Manhattan. As the officer watched, defendant removed a small plastic bag from a brown paper bag and handed it to another man in exchange for money. Carney radioed to Police Officers Shea and Fitzgerald, who were in a patrol car, that there had been a "hand to hand," and provided a detailed description of defendant. Shea and Fitzgerald responded to the street corner, followed defendant in their car, and instructed him to stop. Defendant quickened his pace and entered a delicatessen. Shea and Fitzgerald followed defendant into the store, where defendant discarded a brown paper bag. While Fitzgerald guarded defendant to prevent his escape, Shea recovered the bag, which contained more than 100 vials of what later proved to be crack cocaine.
Defendant was arrested and indicted on charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees (Penal Law §§ 220.16, 220.09). Defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence was denied and he was later convicted of both charges. A divided Appellate Division affirmed, 184 A.D.2d 296, 585 N.Y.S.2d 204 and the dissenting Justice granted defendant leave to appeal. We affirm.
We need not reach the issue that divided Appellate Division--namely, whether probable cause for defendant's arrest could be established without calling Carney at the suppression hearing--for the alternative rationale of the motion court, based on findings undisturbed by the Appellate Division, provides a basis for affirmance.
Defendant's street corner activity gave the police an objective, credible reason to approach him (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). In the circumstances presented, defendant's flight furnished reasonable suspicion that he had committed or was about to commit a crime such that pursuit by the officers was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lee
...... Nor were there any other factors, aside from the description, which would either confirm the reliability of the information or independently provide the officer with a reasonable suspicion that defendant was, in fact, the homicide suspect (cf., People v. Matienzo, 81 N.Y.2d 778, 593 N.Y.S.2d 785, 609 N.E.2d 138). . Since the source of the hearsay information in this case was the Philadelphia Police Department, rather than an anonymous tip, the arresting officer was entitled to rely on the unsupported statement that a person fitting ......
-
People v. Miller
......1058, 601 N.Y.S.2d 459, 619 N.E.2d 396 ), absent other specific circumstances that the individual might be engaged in criminality ( People v. May, 81 N.Y.2d 725, 593 N.Y.S.2d 760, 609 N.E.2d 113 [1992] ; People v. Matienzo , 81 N.Y.2d 778, 593 N.Y.S.2d 785, 609 N.E.2d 138 [1993] ). An officer's common-law right to inquire, i.e., question in an accusatory manner, referred to as a ‘Level Two’ encounter, 74 Misc.3d 627 must be based on a "founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" ( Id. ). Where an ......
-
People v. Reyes
...... Recent decisions involving flight indicate continued concern in connection with the legal effect of flight and pursuit (see, People v. Matienzo, 81 N.Y.2d 778, 593 N.Y.S.2d 785, 609 N.E.2d 138; People v. Madera, 189 A.D.2d 462, 596 N.Y.S.2d 766, affd. 82 N.Y.2d 775, 604 N.Y.S.2d 538, 624 N.E.2d 675; see also, People v. Holmes, supra, Bellacosa, J., dissenting 81 N.Y.2d at 1059, 601 N.Y.S.2d 459, 619 N.E.2d 396). There is no authority, ......
-
People v. Miller
...other specific circumstances that the individual might be engaged in criminality (People v May, 81 N.Y.2d 725 [1992]; People v Matienzo, 81 N.Y.2d 778 [1993]). An officer's common-law right to inquire, i.e., question in an accusatory manner, referred to as a 'Level Two' encounter, must be b......