People v. Stroman

• Decision Date: 06 June 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04045,107 A.D.3d 1023,967 N.Y.S.2d 202
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marcus A. STROMAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 1023
967 N.Y.S.2d 202
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04045

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Marcus A. STROMAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 6, 2013.

[967 N.Y.S.2d 203]

Linda B. Johnson, West Sand Lake, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider–Ulacco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, McCARTHY and EGAN Jr., JJ.

McCARTHY, J.

[107 A.D.3d 1023]Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), rendered October 19, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a seven-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the first degree, admitting that he forcibly stole property from the victims while displaying a loaded handgun. County Court sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of six years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that the initial stop and detention by the police constituted an arrest requiring probable cause. Defendant urges that, in the absence of any information connecting him to the armed robbery, the arrest was unlawful, thereby

[967 N.Y.S.2d 204]

rendering the evidence seized from him at the police station inadmissible. We disagree.

Where a police officer reasonably suspects “that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, the CPL authorizes a forcible stop and detention of that person” ( People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 [1976];seeCPL 140.50[1] ). “ ‘[I]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion’ ” ( People v. Williams, 305 A.D.2d 804, 806, 759 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2003], quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 [1968];see People v. Carney, 58 N.Y.2d 51, 53, 457 N.Y.S.2d 776, 444 N.E.2d 26 [1982] ). If [107 A.D.3d 1024]the intrusion involved is of sufficient magnitude, it can constitute an arrest, but not every seizure where a police officer draws his or her gun and handcuffs an individual necessarily elevates the stop to a full-blown arrest ( see People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378, 380, 540 N.Y.S.2d 971, 538 N.E.2d 323 [1989];People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, 20–21, 431 N.Y.S.2d 485, 409 N.E.2d 958 [1980],cert. denied449 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 582, 66 L.Ed.2d 479 [1980];People v. Williams, 305 A.D.2d at 806, 759 N.Y.S.2d 580;People v. Bennett, 189 A.D.2d 924, 925, 592 N.Y.S.2d 484 [1993] ).

The evidence at the suppression hearing reveals that two police officers received a radio dispatch of an armed robbery in progress occurring a block away from their location. Although no description of the suspect was provided by the dispatcher, the officers, who arrived at the scene within seconds of the dispatch, observed defendant, the only individual in the area, walking in the driveway alongside the residence. The officers drew their guns and ordered defendant to stop and lay on the ground, at which point defendant was handcuffed, escorted to the patrol car and told that he was being detained pending an investigation. “Where, as here, police officers find themselves in a rapidly developing and dangerous situation presenting an imminent threat to their well-being, they must be permitted to take reasonable measures” ( People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d at 380, 540 N.Y.S.2d 971, 538 N.E.2d 323 [citation omitted]; see People v. Bennett, 189 A.D.2d at 925, 592 N.Y.S.2d 484). Given the extremely short period of time between the report of the armed robbery and the arrival of the officers on the scene, defendant's presence...