People v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 23 February 1971
• Citation: 36 A.D.2d 603,318 N.Y.S.2d 891
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 891

318 N.Y.S.2d 891

36 A.D.2d 603

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Feb. 23, 1971.

P. F. Schwindt, New York City, for respondent.

M. A. M. Edkiss, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before STEVENS, P.J., and CAPOZZOLI, MARKEWICH, KUPFERMAN, and TILZER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on September 25, 1969, convicting defendant after trial of felonious possession of a weapon and possession of a dangerous drug and sentencing him to an indeterminate term up to four years on the weapons charge, and an unconditional discharge on the drug charge, is affirmed.

As stated in the dissenting opinion, the major issue herein is whether there was probable cause to make the arrest. We believe that probable cause was established. An officer was summoned by a manager of a rooming house and told that narcotics were being sold in the room occupied by defendant. The source of the informant's information was revealed as being his own observations of addicts going in and out of the room, and complaints which had been received from other tenants. The officer (together with two fellow officers) returned to the premises later in the evening pursuant to the manager's instructions, and observed four individuals separately enter and leave defendant's room during a fifteen minute period. Each individual remained in the room but a couple of minutes; two of the individuals were recognized by the officer from the neighborhood as narcotic addicts; and one was observed upon entry into the room to be holding two bills in his hands. After making these observations, the officers entered the room using a key previously given them by the manager. Upon entry, the defendant was discovered holding a gun, and upon being searched was found to have on his person twenty-two glassine envelopes.

As stated above, we find that under all the circumstances the officer had probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed, thereby justifying entry into the room to make an arrest (see Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327).

The informant was, without doubt, established to be reliable. He was known to the officer for ten years and information previously received from the informant led to prior arrests and convictions. Of equal importance is the fact that the informant's job as manager of the rooming house placed him in a position to be intimately aware of the activities on the premises, and to observe unusual activities on the premises, as well as observing strangers going in and out of room. The information he gave the police officer was therefore 'something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation.' (People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 136, 303 N.Y.S.2d 33, 38; quoting from Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 416, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637.) Furthermore, the officer's observations corroborated the informant's information in every detail. The stream of traffic occurred at the time the manager stated it would. The persons entering the room stayed but a few minutes, and two were recognized as being addicts. This latter fact was relevant as bearing on the issue of probable cause (cf. People v. Rosello, 36 A.D.2d 595, 318 N.Y.S.2d 393), and the Court below was correct in considering such testimony, given by the officer whose expertise is not denied, and who clearly has sources of information other than from arrests. Considering all the above facts, there was 'reasonable ground or probable cause * * * that is, observations or information sufficient to move a reasonable man to conclude that a crime' had been committed. (People v. White, 16 N.Y.2d 270, 273, 266 N.Y.S.2d 100, 102, 213 N.E.2d 438, 440; see also People v. Zimbardo, 21 N.Y.2d 15, 286 N.Y.S.2d 237, 233 N.E.2d 263; People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 269 N.Y.S.2d 111, 216 N.E.2d 321.) People v. Hendricks, Supra, does not require a different conclusion for the tests set forth in that case were complied with. Not only was the informant reliable, but his information was proven reliable, being corroborated by 'independent observations made by the police officer'. (People v. Hendricks, Supra, 25 N.Y.2d at p. 134, 303 N.Y.S.2d at p. 37.)

In addition, we might add that there is question as to whether defendant has any standing to raise the issue as to the legality of the police officers' entry into the room. At the time of the officers' entry, there was doubt as to whether defendant was a legal occupant of the room and therefore he might not be a party aggrieved under Section 813--c of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see People v. Cefaro, 28 A.D.2d 694, 282 N.Y.S.2d 668 affd. 21 N.Y.2d 252, 287 N.Y.S.2d 371, 234 N.E.2d 423; reversed on other grounds, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 296 N.Y.S.2d 310, 244 N.E.2d 878).

It is also...