People v. Messier
| Citation | 44 Misc.2d 114,252 N.Y.S.2d 995 |
| Parties | People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jaques C. MESSIER (a/k/a Jean Messier), Antonio Facchino and Ronald Le Maire, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 15 August 1964 |
| Court | New York County Court |
William Cahn, Dist. Atty., of Nassau County, Mineola, for the People.
Moses M. Falk, New York City, for defendants.
This is a motion by the defendants for an order to suppress certain evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure. The Court records reflect the following: The Defendants were indicted on April 3, 1964, by a Nassau County Grand Jury for Burglary Third Degree and Grand Larceny First Degree, it being charged that on February 16, 1964, the defendants did burglarize the dwelling house of Marie Rushmore at Westbury, in the County of Nassau, stealing personal property belonging to Marie Rushmore of a value in excess of $500.
The three defendants were arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and thereafter made this motion to suppress as a result of which a hearing was held before me on July 13, 1964.
At the hearing, it developed that Ronald Le Maire had rented apartment 7C at 442 E. 57 Street, in the City of New York, which he thereafter permitted his cohorts, Jaques Messier and Antonio Facchino, to occupy with their friends, Jacqueline Bougie and Monique Carrear.
It also appears without dispute that all three defendants and the two girls are from Montreal, and the three defendants have long criminal records in Canada. More particularly, Messier and Facchino in the early part of 1964, escaped from the New Court House at Montreal where they were being held for Robbery. It further appears that Messier and Facchino have boasted that they would not be taken easily, and were reported to have an arsenal of guns in their possession including a submachine gun with three loaded magazines and one automatic rifle.
Messier and Facchino were wanted by the Canadian authorities for Escape and Jacqueline Bougie and Monique Carrear for aiding Messier and Facchino as well as harboring them.
These are the facts as I find them when Messier and Facchino were summarily arrested on 57th Street, a short distance from the entrance to the premises, following which Jacqueline Bougie and Monique Carrear were summarily arrested in apartment 7C on the 7th floor of the apartment house situated at 442 E. 57th Street.
Messier and Facchino contend the search of the apartment under the circumstances was unlawful and the resulting stolen property recovered by the police in an amount in excess of $500.00 was unconstitutionally seized, and should be suppressed and not used in evidence against them. (United States Const. Amendment IV and XIV; New York State Const. Art. 1, Sec. 12; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933 (1961).
Defendants' motion must be and should be in all respects denied (cf. People v. Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263; People v. Santiago, 13 N.Y.2d 326, 247 N.Y.S.2d 473, 196 N.E.2d 881). This Court is of the opinion that the police officers had reasonable and probable cause to effectuate the arrest of the defendants and their women companions.
The classic statement of the meaning of probable or reasonable cause is that of Chief Justice Marshall in Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch [11 U.S.] 339, 348, 3 L.Ed. 364: See also Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; People v. Lane, 10 N.Y.2d 347, 353, 223 N.Y.S.2d 197, 198, 179 N.E.2d 339, 340.
In Brinegar v. United States, supra, 388 U.S. p. 175, 69 S.Ct. p. 1310, the Court said: "The substance of all the definitions' of probable cause 'is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt' * * * And this 'means less than evidence which would justify condemnation' or conviction. * * * In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Stated more recently: 'the existence of probable cause must rest upon facts and circumstances amounting to 'more than suspicion or possibility, even though not certainty or proof'.' People v. Beshany et al., 43 Misc.2d 521, 528, 252 N.Y.S.2d 110, 118.
In determining whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a felony, the police officer may take into account the character and reputation of the person and the information relayed to him by other law enforcement agencies. People v. Lauricella, 32 Misc.2d 344, 222 N.Y.S.2d 503. The reasonableness of a search is to be determined by an analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case 'the total atmosphere of the case.' United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 66, 70 S.Ct. 430, 435, 94 L.Ed. 653.
Unquestionably the arrest of Messier and Facchino was perfectly proper because Detective Quill had probable cause and reasonable grounds to believe that both Messier and Facchino were wanted by the Montreal authorities for the of Escape. The source of Detective Quill's belief was a communication from Inspector Patenaude of the Montreal Provincial Police. In addition, however, detective Quill and his companion police officers maintained a 24 hour stake-out on the apartment and verified the presence of not only Messier and Facchino but Jacqueline Bougie and Monique Carrear as well.
Furthermore, additional confirmation was had when Detective Quill received photos of the suspects as well as the wanted circulars sent to him by Inspector Patenaude.
Clearly, then, Detective Quill had not only the right but a...
To continue reading
Request your trial