People v. Pounds
| Decision Date | 14 December 1970 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Donald POUNDS and Charles Shuman, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Kings County, for appellant; Helman R. Brook, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel; Joel C. Mandelman, Law student, Indiana University, School of Law, Robert Baum, Law student, Syracuse University, School of Law, on the brief.
William G. Kerwick, Baldwin, for respondent Donald Pounds; Henesy Kerwick & Hodges, Baldwin, on the brief.
Arnold D. Roseman, New York City, for respondent Charles Shuman.
Before CHRIST, P.J., and MUNDER, LATHAM, KLEINFELD and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, 315 N.Y.S.2d 672, dated June 2, 1970, which granted defendants' separate motions to suppress their confessions, etc., after a hearing.
As to defendant Shuman, order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied.
As to defendant Pounds, order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion remanded to the Criminal Term for a further hearing at which the People shall adduce such further evidence as they may be advised bearing on the grounds for the seizure and detention of Pounds by the police for interrogation, including but not limited to what precipitated their search for him at Mrs. Bank's apartment.
In our opinion the reasonableness of a detention for interrogation purposes is measured by standards less than those requiring probable cause for arrest. Accordingly, if any reasonable basis exists for suspecting a person of having committed or participated in the commission of a crime or for attributing to that person some questionable relationship with respect thereto, the police should not be frustrated in pursuing their investigation to the point of detention and interrogation either on the spot or at the police station as long as such detention and interrogation are not tantamount to an arrest within the purview of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If such reasonable basis short of probable cause exists, a detention and interrogation which follows would, in our opinion, be lawful and proper. In such event, absent involuntariness, a confession obtained in the course thereof would be admissible and could not be considered the product of illegality, even under the rationale of Morales v. New York, 396 U.S. 102, 90 S.Ct. 291, 24 L.Ed.2d 299, or the result of indiscriminate invasions of privacy and wholesale roundups and harassment of innocent persons of which the court in Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676, was apprehensive.
In our opinion, sufficient evidence was adduced by the People to warrant a conclusion that they could,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Chennault v. Smith
...a finding was within his discretion. See People v. Briggs, 36 A. D.2d 790, 319 N.Y.S.2d 374 (3d Dept. 1971); People v. Pounds, 35 A.D.2d 969, 317 N.Y.S.2d 884 (2d Dept. 1970).11 Therefore, the court again defers to the trial judge's findings. Townsend v. Sain, supra, 372 U.S. at 318, 83 S.C......
-
People v. Green
...on the ground of "failure to prosecute" (People v. Pounds, 63 Misc.2d 818, 313 N.Y.S.2d 578, Mollen, J., revd. on other gds. 35 A.D.2d 969, 317 N.Y.S.2d 884). The underlying rationale of these cases is that if the Legislature had desired to remove jurisdiction from the lower court over the ......
-
People v. Hill
...result would obtain even if Hedrick had been a co-defendant (Jacobs v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 4 Cir., 367 F.2d 321; People v. Pounds, 35 A.D.2d 969, 317 N.Y.S.2d 884; cf. Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S.Ct. 611, 34 L.Ed.2d In order to resolve the question of the seized automob......
- People v. Pilat