People v. Scruggs

• Decision Date: 18 October 1982
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Donald L. SCRUGGS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 22

455 N.Y.S.2d 22

90 A.D.2d 520

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Donald L. SCRUGGS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 18, 1982.

Steven M. Del Vecchio, Mineola, for appellant.

Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Vincent A. Malito, Asst. Dist. Atty., Riverhead, of counsel; Joseph Walsh, Riverhead, on brief), for respondent.

Before TITONE, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, GULOTTA and NIEHOFF, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 21, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress statements.

Judgment affirmed.

On April 16, 1980, Officer William Sutton was on patrol in a "sector" car when he received a radio call informing him that a residential alarm had gone off at 40 Bellhaven Road. Although he had recently passed the site without observing anything amiss, he immediately proceeded back to the subject location. His sergeant also responded to the call, in a separate car. En route Sutton observed two black males walking along the street some two-tenths of a mile away from 40 Bellhaven Road. The officer recognized the shorter man, later identified as defendant, as a local resident. He regarded their behavior as suspicious since they avoided looking at him as he rode by. Furthermore, since they were in close proximity to the scene, he thought they might have seen someone or heard the alarm. Consequently, he radioed his sergeant, described the two "subjects" and asked the sergeant to stop them for questioning. Upon arriving at the scene, the officer noted that the house had been broken into and that certain of the back doors had been removed. He went back to the radio car to issue a "local notification". The sergeant had not seen the two men, but shortly thereafter, Officer Sutton received a communication from two brother officers informing him that they had stopped the subjects for questioning. In response to their queries, defendant proffered a false name which did not coincide with the police warrant control sheet, on which his true name appeared. After being apprised of his rights, he was arrested on the outstanding warrant and was transported to the Fifth Precinct, where he gave a number of incriminating statements to the police.

The seizure of defendant's person based upon the evidence then available to the police was not illegal. A finding of probable cause is not a sine qua non of all police intrusion on an individual's liberty (People v. Gonzales, 86 A.D.2d 634, 446 N.Y.S.2d 342, mot. for lv. to app. den. 56 N.Y.2d 596, 450 N.Y.S.2d ----, 435 N.E.2d 1104). Whenever an individual has been physically or constructively detained by virtue of a significant interruption of his liberty of movement emanating from particular police activity, such individual has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (People v. Gonzales, supra; People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, 431 N.Y.S.2d 485, 409 N.E.2d 958, cert. den. 449 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 582, 66 L.Ed.2d 479; People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, 418 N.Y.S.2d 352, 391 N.E.2d 1329, cert. den. 444 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 461, 62 L.Ed.2d 383; People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 324 N.E.2d 872). In evaluating a police seizure, it is the function of the courts to consider whether such action was justified in its inception and whether the police response was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which predicated it (People v. Cantor, supra; Matter of Darrick C., 72 A.D.2d 768, 421 N.Y.S.2d 391). The degree of permissible police interference is directly proportionate to the degree of objectively credible information possessed by them.

"The minimal intrusion of approaching to request information is permissible when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality (People v De Bour, supra ). The next degree,...