People v. Miranda
| Decision Date | 24 August 2010 |
| Citation | 907 N.Y.S.2d 4,76 A.D.3d 466 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Carlos MIRANDA, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Kathryn E. Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), entered on or about October 9, 2007, which granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings on the accusatory instrument.
At the suppression hearing, the People called one witness, a police officer. Supreme Court "adopt[ed] his testimony in its entirety," finding that the officer, who was not cross-examined at the hearing, "testified candidly, credibly and to the best of his recollection." The officer testified that he approached defendant in a park in which various illegal activities occurred, for the purpose of issuing him a summons for being in the park after dusk. When defendant was taking out his identification in response to the officer's request, "his jacket exposed the knife that was clipped to his pocket." The officer was then asked, "Can you describe how you first observed this knife?" He responded: "As he moved to get the ID lifting the jacket exposed the knife that was clipped to his pocket." Asked what his reaction was, the officer testified that The knife turned out to be a gravity knife, and the officer placed defendant under arrest for possessing a per se weapon (Penal Law § 265.01[1] ).
Under these facts the motion to suppress should have been denied. The officer's approach and request for identification unquestionably were lawful and defendant concedes as much. When the officer saw the knife, he was justified in removing it from defendant's person ( see People v. Davenport, 9 A.D.3d 316, 780 N.Y.S.2d 14 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 705, 785 N.Y.S.2d 33, 818 N.E.2d 675 [2004] ). That the officer did not have probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of defendant'sperson and arrest him until the officer subsequently ascertained that the knife was a gravity knife is of no moment. Supreme Court also erred in concluding that the officer acted unlawfully because he "only saw a portion of the knife sticking out of defendant's pocket" and that "only a portion of the handle [of the knife] was visible to him." As is clear from the testimony quoted above, the officer unequivocally testified that he saw a knife. No evidence at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alkabeeli
...the knife turned out to be a gravity knife. 48 Misc.3d 686The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, First Department (76 A.D.3d 466, 907 N.Y.S.2d 4 [2010] ), and held that the officer was entitled to seize the knife from defendant when the officer saw the knife. The Court of App......
-
Fisk Bldg. Associates LLC v. Shimazaki II, Inc.
...66 A.D.3d 508, 509, 885 N.Y.S.2d 905 [2009] ).76 A.D.3d 469 Defendants failed to create a triable issue of fact sufficient to warrant907 N.Y.S.2d 4denial of plaintiff's motion to dismiss the first affirmative defense that Shimazaki II's eviction was illegal as based on an improperly issued ......
-
Commandment Keepers Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation of Living God v. 31 Mount Morris Park, LLC
...dismissed, plaintiff does not have a valid claim against the buyers and the notice of pendency was properly cancelled (CPLR 6514[b]; see 76 A.D.3d 466Fleming-Jackson v. Fleming, 41 A.D.3d 175, 838 N.Y.S.2d 506 [2007]...
-
People v. Miranda
...defendant had committed a crime. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the officer was entitled to seize the knife when he saw it 76 A.D.3d 466, 907 N.Y.S.2d 4 (2010). We agree with the Appellate Division. Where a knife (even if not necessarily an illegal one) becomes plainly visibl......