People v. Ruffin
| Decision Date | 21 September 1987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Daryl Lee RUFFIN a/k/a Darryl Ruffin, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Matthew Muraskin, Mineola (Lynn Theresa Cahalan, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Anthony J. Girese, Lawrence J. Schwarz and William Dempsey, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered July 26, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, in part, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to the police and to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is granted to the extent of suppressing the gray vinyl duffel bag and its contents from evidence, and is otherwise denied, the defendant's plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings.
In the early morning of August 16, 1984, while the defendant was riding a bicycle through a residential area of Lawrence, New York, he had a street encounter with police officers which resulted in his arrest and his being charged with burglary in the second and third degrees, petit larceny, possession of burglar's tools, and resisting arrest. On this appeal, the defendant contends that the police conduct was unjustified and illegal at its inception, and that the hearing court erred in failing to rule that all of his statements and the physical evidence obtained as a result of this encounter should be suppressed. The police testimony at the suppression hearing revealed the following sequence of events:
At about 1:40 A.M. on August 16, 1984, while on patrol in the vicinity of Wentworth Place and Broadway in Lawrence, Nassau County, Police Officer Robert Morea observed the defendant, a black male in his early thirties, riding a white bicycle with a brown paper bag hanging over the handlebars and a gray duffel bag, approximately two feet long, slung over his shoulder. The defendant initiated the encounter by approaching the police officer's marked car and asking for the time. After the officer responded to the request, the defendant proceeded westbound on Broadway.
Officer Morea continued observing the defendant ride a distance of about 60 feet, then pulled his vehicle up alongside the bicycle, turned on the interior light of the patrol car, rolled down the window and gestured with his hand for the defendant to stop. The officer noticed that the brown paper bag contained either "audio or visual electronic equipment", and asked the defendant, "[w]hat's going on"? The defendant responded that he was returning home from work, explaining that he worked part time, off of the books at a bakery on Rockaway Turnpike and Central Avenue, and that his wife was at home sick and due to give birth in about eight days. The officer knew of no bakery at the location provided by the defendant and asked him for identification. The defendant produced a wallet displaying a social security card in his name, and upon Morea's request, agreed to accompany him in the police vehicle back to the bakery to be identified by his employer.
Morea testified that a rash of about eight or nine burglaries had occurred recently in the area during the early morning hours, some involving the use of arms, committed by suspects described as black males ranging in age from their mid-twenties to mid-thirties. One of the burglaries involved the theft of a semi-automatic machine gun.
Morea radioed for assistance from another police unit to safeguard the defendant's bicycle, and when another officer responded, he proceeded with the defendant in the back seat of his vehicle to the location provided by him, but found no bakery. Morea then asked the defendant if he could provide a different location where the bakery might be and he directed the officer to proceed about six blocks away where they came to a bagel shop. Upon entering, the manager informed Morea that the defendant did not work there and that he did not know him.
According to Morea, the defendant then changed his story and claimed that he had originally stated that he had only been outside the store with some friends. As they walked out of the bagel shop, Morea observed that another policeman, Officer Kelly, arrived on the scene and got back into his patrol car. Morea then asked the defendant for the gray duffel bag on his shoulder. The defendant asked why and hesitated, but upon Morea's further request for the bag, the defendant complied. Morea noticed that the bag was heavy as he placed it between the two front seats in the police car.
Officer Kelly then asked the defendant where he had obtained the video recorder which was in the bag. The defendant at first stated it was his, but on further questioning, admitted that he did not have a receipt for it because "he had bought it hot". Kelly then informed the defendant that he was under arrest, and a struggle ensued with Morea joining in to aid Kelly in handcuffing the defendant. The arrest took place about two feet from the front left side of the patrol car where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williamson
...no exigent circumstances having been present (see, People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309, 469 N.Y.S.2d 618, 457 N.E.2d 723; People v. Ruffin, 133 A.D.2d 425, 519 N.Y.S.2d 410; cf., People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454, 465 N.Y.S.2d 896, 452 N.E.2d 1224; People v. Johnson, 59 N.Y.2d 1014, 466 N.Y.S.2d 95......
-
People v. Thompson
...or “grabbable area” at the time he was arrested ( see People v. Johnson, 241 A.D.2d 527, 527–528, 660 N.Y.S.2d 730;People v. Ruffin, 133 A.D.2d 425, 427–428, 519 N.Y.S.2d 410;see also People v. Hernandez, 40 A.D.3d at 779, 836 N.Y.S.2d 219). Moreover, the People failed to present evidence e......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...under the De Bour analysis applicable to pedestrians (see People v. Day, 8 A.D.3d 495, 496, 778 N.Y.S.2d 513 ; People v. Ruffin, 133 A.D.2d 425, 519 N.Y.S.2d 410 ; see also People v. Feliciano, 140 A.D.3d 1776, 32 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; People v. Lee, 96 A.D.3d 1522, 1525, 947 N.Y.S.2d 241 ; People......
-
People v. Encarnacion
...60 N.Y.2d 309, 469 N.Y.S.2d 618, 457 N.E.2d 723; People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454, 465 N.Y.S.2d 896, 452 N.E.2d 1224; People v. Ruffin, 133 A.D.2d 425, 519 N.Y.S.2d 410). However, the search and seizure of the bag are justifiable pursuant to a different exception to the warrant requirements: ......