People v. Miles

• Decision Date: 15 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 1010,918 N.Y.S.2d 594
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. James MILES, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 594 82 A.D.3d 1010 The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. James MILES, respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. March 15, 2011.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Donald Berk and Stephen V. Treglia of counsel), for appellant.

Marianne Karas, Armonk, N.Y., for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered May 20, 2010, as, upon reargument of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements to law enforcement officials and physical evidence, adhered to the original determination in an order dated April 20, 2010, granting that branch of the motion.

ORDERED that the order entered May 20, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the arresting officers lacked an objective, credible reason for approaching the stopped car in which the defendant was a passenger, identifying themselves as police officers, and shining at least one flashlight into the car ( see People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 984, 629 N.Y.S.2d 161, 652 N.E.2d 907; see also People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 525, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329; People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 194, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204). The officer who testified at the suppression hearing failed to articulate any reason for approaching the vehicle other than the car was parked outside a bar in an area where there had been "community complaints" of gang and drug activity, which, standing alone, did not constitute a sufficient basis for the officer to approach the vehicle and request information ( see People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d at 526, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329; cf. People v. Reyes, 83 N.Y.2d 945, 946, 615 N.Y.S.2d 316, 638 N.E.2d 961, cert. denied 513 U.S. 991, 115 S.Ct. 492, 130 L.Ed.2d 403). Accordingly, the physical evidence seized and the statements made by the defendant were properly suppressed, and upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination.