People v. Tidwell

• Citation: 122 A.D.2d 289,504 N.Y.S.2d 787
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Eric TIDWELL, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 28 July 1986
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 787

504 N.Y.S.2d 787

122 A.D.2d 289

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Eric TIDWELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 28, 1986.

Leon H. Tracy, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Brian D. Foley and Robert E. Lesser, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered April 13, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the uniformed officers possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant. To establish probable cause in this context, it must be found that the police officers acted reasonably in believing that a crime had been committed by the defendant. In making such a judgment, we must also bear in mind that "[i]n dealing with probable cause * * * we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act" (Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; see, People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254, 445 N.Y.S.2d 97, 429 N.E.2d 775; People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 429 N.Y.S.2d 173, 406 N.E.2d 1066). Here, the police were informed by a named citizen that a crime had just been committed by two men seen on the street. Such information given by citizens is deemed highly reliable and may be acted upon by the police (People v. Selasar, 91 A.D.2d 616, 456 N.Y.S.2d 403; see, e.g., People v. Moore, 32 N.Y.2d 67, 343 N.Y.S.2d 107, 295 N.E.2d 780, cert denied 414 U.S. 1011, 94 S.Ct. 376, 38 L.Ed.2d 249). Armed with the knowledge that a robbery had just been committed by the two men, the police officers were reasonable in their belief that the men may have been armed, and therefore it was proper for them to approach the men with their guns drawn (see, People v. Selasar, supra ). Further, the defendant's flight from the scene upon seeing the officers corroborated the citizen's allegation that a crime had been committed by him (see, People v. King, 65 N.Y.2d 702, 492 N.Y.S.2d 1, 481 N.E.2d 541; People v. Grego, 90 A.D.2d 878, 456 N.Y.S.2d 855; People v. Casado, 83 A.D.2d 385, 444 N.Y.S.2d 920). Accordingly,...