People v. Rosello
| Decision Date | 18 February 1971 |
| Citation | 318 N.Y.S.2d 393,36 A.D.2d 595 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John ROSELLO, Jr., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. L. Levinson, New York City, for appellant.
J. Burnett, R. Polstein, A. L. Richter, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before STEVENS, P.J., and CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN, KUPFERMAN and TILZER, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 27, 1970 which granted defendants' motion to suppress physical evidence reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the motion to suppress is denied.
The defendants were indicted by a grand jury on May 29, 1969 and charged with the crime of Possession of a Weapon as a felony.
Two fully loaded guns, .45 calibre and .38 calibre pistols, were found in their rented car, one under the driver's seat and the other on the floor, behind the right front seat.
The Court below well stated the problem. Shortly after midnight in September 1968, in a high incidence crime area, four members of the Police Department, in an unmarked patrol car, noticed a parked rental car with the motor running and four males in the car. One of the detectives, Maxwell, the only witness, testified that he left the patrol car and approached the parked vehicle from the front end, when he saw a six-inch blade hunting knife being thrown from its rear window to the sidewalk (but not at him). When he received no reply to his inquiry as to who threw the knife, he ordered the occupants out of the car for his three companion officers to check them. At approximately the same time, Detective Maxwell searched the car and found the guns in question.
The Court below correctly determined that the inquiry and the frisk were justified (Code of Crim.Proc. § 180-a; People v. Mack, 26 N.Y.2d 311, 310 N.Y.S.2d 292, 258 N.E.2d 703 (1970); People v. Peters, 18 N.Y.2d 238, 273 N.Y.S.2d 217, 219 N.E.2d 595 (1966); People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 201 N.E.2d 32 (1964). While possession of the hunting knife would not be per se illegal, it could be a crime if '* * * adapted for use primarily as a weapon * * *.' Penal Law § 265.15(4).
The police acted reasonably in inquiring, and they received no answer. It was logical that they proceed further. People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101, 308 N.Y.S.2d 836, 257 N.E.2d 23 (1970).
In addition, the Detective testified that when he came to the car he recognized one of the defendants, Philip Wu, from having previously arrested him. The Court below sustained the objections to this answer, but the testimony should have been allowed as bearing on probable cause.
When we come to the question of the search of the interior of the car, in conjunction with all of the foregoing, we do not have a situation such as in People v. Lewis, 26 N.Y.2d 547, 311 N.Y.S.2d 905, 260 N.E.2d 538 (1970), where the search of the car in the street occurred separate, and apart, and after the upstairs arrest in the police station. Both for the protection of the police in the course of doing their obvious duty, and due to the suspicious circumstances, the contemporaneous search here was justified. People v. McKnight, 26 N.Y.2d 1034, 311 N.Y.S.2d 922, 260 N.E.2d 552 (1970); People v. Butterly, 25 N.Y.2d 159, 303 N.Y.S.2d 57, 250 N.E.2d 340 (1969).
All concur except STEVENS, P.J., and TILZER, J., who dissent in the following memorandum by TILZER, J.
I dissent and vote to affirm the order granting defendant's motion to suppress.
I agree with the well considered opinion by the Trial Court. The Trial Court while upholding the initial right to make the 'immediate and summary street inquiry,' ruled that such inquiry or investigation could not extend to a search of the interior of the car, which had been emptied of its occupants.
The facts justify the Trial Court's conclusions. Although the initial inquiry and questioning of the defendant may be deemed proper, the full-scale search of the automobile which followed thereafter, constituted an illegal search. At the time the search was made there did not exist probable cause to believe that a crime had been or was about to be committed. While the throwing of the hunting knife from the car (concededly not thrown in the direction of the police officers), might have been a suspicious act, justifying the initial inquiry and direction to the defendants to leave the car, such conduct did not raise 'the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause,' (People v. Corrado, 22 N.Y.2d 308, 313, 292 N.Y.S.2d 648, 651, 239 N.E.2d 526, 529) justifying the search of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. De Bour
...vague description, ordered him to 'freeze' and then frisked him--all without asking a single question (compare, e.g., People v. Rosello, 36 A.D.2d 595, 318 N.Y.S.2d 393; People v. Joslin, 32 A.D.2d 859, 301 N.Y.S.2d 212). The security and constitutionally guaranteed rights of our citizenry ......
-
People v. Richardson
...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......
-
Application of Martuzas
...any arrest, Officer Gaebel would have reasonable grounds and probable cause to inspect the vehicle in the manner he did (Peo. v. Rosello 36 A.D.2d 595, 318 N.Y.S.2d 393; Peo. v. Sher, 68 Misc.2d 917, 329 N.Y.S.2d 2). The leaf of marijuana was not as a result of a deliberate search (see Poin......
-
S., In re
...of § 265.05(4) of the Penal Law, the only subdivision of this section of the Penal Law involved on this appeal. People v. Rosello, 36 A.D.2d 595, 318 N.Y.S.2d 393, aff'd 29 N.Y.2d 838, 327 N.Y.S.2d 852, 277 N.E.2d Order, Family Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered on May......