People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 11 February 2002 |
| Citation | 738 N.Y.S.2d 357,291 A.D.2d 462 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>MARK THOMAS, Respondent. |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
On December 11, 1998, police officers conducted a controlled delivery of a Federal Express package containing five pounds of marihuana. The defendant answered the door at the residence where the package was addressed, stated that he was expecting the package, and accepted and signed for it under his own name. Moments later, the defendant left the residence carrying a brown paper shopping bag. The undercover police officer who had delivered the package radioed the other police officers in the area and advised them of the defendant's departure. When the police moved in and approached the defendant, he ran and tossed the shopping bag away as he was tackled by the arresting officer.
It is the People's burden to demonstrate the legality of police conduct in the first instance (see, People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367; People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86, 91 n 2; People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 329). The defendant, however, bears the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the evidence should not be used against him (see, People v Berrios, supra at 367; People v Baldwin, 25 NY2d 66, 70; People v Whitehurst, 25 NY2d 389, 391; Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341-342), and that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him (see, People v Milhouse, 246 AD2d 119).
The Supreme Court erred in determining that the People did not establish probable cause for the defendant's arrest. The arresting officer knew that the defendant had just accepted delivery of a package containing marihuana, that he told the delivery person that he was expecting the package, and that he immediately departed from the residence after the delivery, carrying a shopping bag large enough to contain the package. The defendant ran when approached by the arresting officer and his team, who were wearing clothing that identified them as police officers. Considering all these factors, we find that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Acuna, 145 AD2d 427, 429; People v Amarillo, 141 AD2d 551, 552; People v Alexander, 218 AD2d 284). The sequence of events belied any reasonable possibility that the defendant's conduct was equivocal, or equally as innocent as it was suspicious.
Accordingly, the People satisfied their burden in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fletcher
...25 N.Y.2d 389, 391, 306 N.Y.S.2d 673, 254 N.E.2d 905 ; People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588 ; People v. Thomas, 291 A.D.2d 462, 463, 738 N.Y.S.2d 357 ). “Implicit in this concept is that the testimony offered by the People in first presenting their case must be credible” ......
-
People v. Harris
...v. Fletcher, 130 A.D.3d at 1064, 15 N.Y.S.3d 797 ; see People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588 ; People v. Thomas, 291 A.D.2d 462, 463, 738 N.Y.S.2d 357 ; cf. Matter of Robert D., 69 A.D.3d 714, 892 N.Y.S.2d 523 ). Here, in exercising our responsibility to conduct an indepen......
-
People v. Bulgin
...that the evidence should not be used against him and that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. People v. Thomas, 291 A.D.2d 462, 463, 738 N.Y.S.2d 357 (2d Dept. 2002); People v. Sidhom, 204 A.D.2d 150, 612 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1st Dept.), lv. denied, 84 N.Y.2d 832, 617 N.Y.S.2d 152, 641 ......
-
People v. Spann
...see People v. Blinker, 80 A.D.3d 619, 915 N.Y.S.2d 593; People v. Hernandez, 40 A.D.3d 777, 778, 836 N.Y.S.2d 219; People v. Thomas, 291 A.D.2d 462, 463, 738 N.Y.S.2d 357; People v. Quinones, 61 A.D.2d 765, 402 N.Y.S.2d 196). The defendant, however, "bears the ultimate burden of proving, by......