People v. Prochilo
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 395 N.Y.S.2d 635,363 N.E.2d 1380,41 N.Y.2d 759 |
| Parties | , 363 N.E.2d 1380 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph PROCHILO, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Clarence GOINGS, Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William BERNARD, also known as James Rogers, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1977 |
James J. Cally, New York City, for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Richard E. Mischel, New York City, of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York City (David I. Pincus, Brooklyn, and Peter L. Zimroth, New York City, of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Joel Brenner, Bay Shore and J. Jeffrey Weisenfeld, New York City, for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Patricia L. Goughan and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York City (Henry Steinglass, Peter L. Zimroth and Richard M. Seltzer, New York City, of counsel), for respondent in the third above-entitled action.
In each of these three cases the defendant sought to suppress a handgun which had been taken from him by the police. The single issue presented whether the action of the police officer was reasonable "must necessarily turn on the facts in each individual case". (People v. Green, 35 N.Y.2d 193, 195, 360 N.Y.S.2d 243, 244, 318 N.E.2d 464.) Because of the number of cases arising in somewhat comparable factual contexts, it may be useful to identify some general guidelines for the resolution of individual cases, with full recognition, however, that there can be no satisfactory frame of reference or template applicable in every instance. At the outset we observe that much weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (cf. People v. Oden, 36 N.Y.2d 382, 368 N.Y.S.2d 508, 329 N.E.2d 188).
The ultimate determination will depend on a balancing of the legitimate interests of the defendants against the reasonableness and appropriateness of the police action. At least three aspects of each individual transaction should be considered. Was there proof of a describable object or of describable conduct that provides a reasonable basis for the police officer's belief that the defendant had a gun in his possession? Was the manner of the officer's approach to the defendant and the seizure of the gun from him reasonable in the circumstances? Was there evidence of probative worth that there had been a pretext stop and frisk or that the police were otherwise motivated by improper or irrelevant purpose? There will be other material considerations, too, in individual cases. Because the totality of the circumstances in each case is necessarily unique, there should be no expectation that comparable significance will always attach to the same or similar factors in different cases.
We turn then to the three appeals which are now before us. In Prochilo, the denial of suppression by Supreme Court should be upheld. An experienced officer, on routine patrol in the 500 block of Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, from his vantage sitting in a parked automobile, observed defendant standing watching other officers interviewing passing pedestrians. From a distance of some seven or eight feet the officer saw defendant making continuing hand motions toward his side. The officer then noticed a bulge at defendant's right hip. The officer left the automobile and as he approached defendant, who was still making the hand motions, observed through defendant's tight outer clothing the complete outline of a revolver at his side. The officer then reached out and removed a .32 calibre revolver loaded with seven rounds of live ammunition from defendant's waistband. The evidence warranted the officer's acting on his belief that defendant had a gun.
In Goings, Supreme Court's denial of a suppression should likewise be sustained. Officers in the Street Crime Unit were patrolli the Times Square area of New York City in a yellow taxicab. In the brightly lighted area of 42nd Street from the slowly moving cab they observed defendant walking along the sidewalk with a female companion. From a distance of some 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alberts, 107970
...fully credited the testimony given by Tobias, and we accord great deference to that credibility determination (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ; People v. Nicholas, 118 A.D.3d 1183, 1188, 988 N.Y.S.2d 277 [2014], lvs denied 24 N.Y.3d 1121......
-
Hall v. City of White Plains, No. 00 CIV. 6958(CM).
..."seizure" to temporarily detain and question; and (2) to determine the reasonableness of such police conduct. See People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 (1977). The "index by which we define whether an encounter is a mere stop or a forcible seizure is the aggre......
-
People v. Alba
...the touchstone by which police conduct is measured under the Fourth Amendment. (Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439 People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 'Whether ... a particular search or seizure is to be considered reasonable requires weighing the government's interest in the detectio......
-
People v. Dunbar
...a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Bennett, 57 A.D.3d 912, 870 N.Y.S.2d 421), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb t......
-
Hall v. City of White Plains, 00 CIV. 6958(CM).
...to temporarily detain and question; and (2) to determine the reasonableness of such police conduct. See People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 (1977). The "index by which we define whether an encounter is a mere stop or a forcible seizure is the aggressiveness ......
-
People v. Dunbar
...a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Bennett, 57 A.D.3d 912, 870 N.Y.S.2d 421), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb t......
-
People v. Fletcher
...clearly unsupported by the evidence (see People v. Wheeler, 2 N.Y.3d 370, 374, 779 N.Y.S.2d 164, 811 N.E.2d 531 ; People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 ; People v. Cole, 85 A.D.3d 1198, 1199, 926 N.Y.S.2d 163 ; People v. Barley, 82 A.D.3d 996, 997, 919 N.......
-
People v. Huff
...the detective's unrebutted testimony, and such a credibility determination is entitled to great deference (see People v. Prochilo,41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). “[T]he warnings given by this experienced [detective] were adequate and fully conveyed to defendant his r......
-
LET'S BE REASONABLE: WHY NEW YORK COURTS NEED TO EMBRACE THE FEDERAL STANDARD FOR ANALYZING POLICE-CIVILIAN ENCOUNTERS.
...interest in privacy and dignity against circumstances which may call for intrusion by organized society."); People v. Prochilo, 363 N.E.2d 1380, 1381 (N.Y. 1977) ("The ultimate determination will depend on a balancing of the legitimate interests of the defendants against the reasonableness ......