People v. Russ
Citation | 91 A.D.2d 593,458 N.Y.S.2d 185 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pamela Renee RUSS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Decision Date | 30 December 1982 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
K.M. Muller, New York City, for respondent B.S. Stendig, New York City, for appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Preminger, J., at plea and sentence; Greenfield, J., at suppression hearing), rendered December 15, 1980, affirmed as to both the order of denial of the suppression motion and the judgment flowing from the plea of guilty.
While we accept the statement of the facts as set forth by our dissenting brother, we do not agree with his conclusion that the motion to suppress should have been granted. The facts, contrary to the dissent's position, do not add up to a case of a police officer acting solely in reliance upon an anonymous radio description of a man, not the defendant, who was never seen by the officer, and who is not before the court. Not at all. In evaluating the circumstances by holding them up for inspection in order to make findings to lead us to the applicable law, one cannot take possibly pertinent rules of law and fit the facts into them. Rules of law must derive from the facts, and must be more than mere abstractions. "There is no rule in law which has any value in the abstract; for it to have life and meaning, it must be applied to a set of facts, in which the participants are people, who act and react in a situation in a human way." People v. Alba, 81 A.D.2d 345, 352, 440 N.Y.S.2d 230. "[A] radioed tip may have almost no legal significance when it stands alone, but ... when considered in conjunction with other supportive facts, it may thus collectively, although not independently, support a reasonable suspicion justifying intrusive police action." People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267, 270, 434 N.Y.S.2d 144, 414 N.E.2d 645. This applies precisely to the situation before us. When police knowledge and experience are considered along with all the discernible objective facts, there emerges a complete pattern justifying police intervention.
. (People v. Valdez, 78 A.D.2d 449, 452, 437 N.Y.S.2d 671.) (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 215, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562.) (People v. Dean, 79 A.D.2d 555, 556, 433 N.Y.S.2d 803.)
(People v. Williams, 79 A.D.2d 147, 148-149, 436 N.Y.S.2d 15.) (People v. Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169, 172, 434 N.Y.S.2d 338.) (People v. Bruce, supra, p. 175, 434 N.Y.S.2d 338.)
And so we turn to examination of the evidence in the light of the foregoing lessons. To begin with, the description of the man referred to in the radio run mattered not at all, but other factors in the radio run did: that a gun had been handed over to that man by a woman in a blue white-top automobile. And, as though a cue line had been spoken, there appeared at once to the officers' sight the automobile just described with a woman sitting in it. To be borne in mind is that the target of the police action was, first, the gun and, only secondarily, its possessor. Further, as is a matter of common knowledge not alone to police, criminals quite often do not personally carry the weapons they may wish to use, but entrust them, between or before or after engagements, to so-called "gun molls." * The purpose is obviously to reduce the risk of being themselves found in possession of contraband. Since the officer knew this, and also had heard that the earlier reported possessor of a weapon in the very described car had received it from a woman, the distinct possibility presented itself that the gun may have been returned to its place of bailment, and that hence immediate police action was required. Self-protection obviously demanded the ready availability of the officer's own weapon while continuing his investigation into the presence of the other firearm. People v. Benjamin, supra, 51 N.Y.2d 267, 271, 434 N.Y.S.2d 144, 414 N.E.2d 645.
One final observation. It may well have been, as the dissent has it, that "Officer McCormick did not assert that he was fearful for the life or safety of himself or other individuals." The presence or absence of these words is not, however, determinative. It is easy to understand that, in his appropriate and almost Pavlovian response to the information he had acquired both before and after arrival, and the emergency confronting him, the officer's adrenalin was in full flow, and, weapon in hand, he felt equal to any eventuality. That would have been the reality of the situation. The suppression motion was properly denied.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Larkins
...a self-protective frisk" of the defendant. Both cases presented factual circumstances significantly different from those we see here. In Russ, the information that defendant had been seen passing a handgun to another occupant of the car came from an anonymous source. There was no report of ......