People v. Valdez

• Decision Date: 22 January 1981
• Citation: 437 N.Y.S.2d 671,78 A.D.2d 449
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Gregory VALDEZ and William Beedles, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 671

437 N.Y.S.2d 671

78 A.D.2d 449

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Gregory VALDEZ and William Beedles, Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Jan. 22, 1981.

Victoria Lea Smith, New York City, of counsel (Allen Alpert, Asst. Dist. Atty., with her on brief; Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty.), for appellant.

Laurence Jacobson, New York City, for defendant-respondent Valdez.

Melvin B. Zahler, Brooklyn, of counsel (William E. Hellerstein, New York City, attorney), for defendant-respondent Beedles.

Before BIRNS, J. P., and SANDLER, SULLIVAN, MARKEWICH and SILVERMAN, JJ.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

At issue is whether Trial Term properly suppressed various articles of physical evidence and defendants' statements as the product of an arrest for which probable cause was lacking.

The account of events leading to the arrest was adduced at the suppression hearing. On April 18, 1979, at approximately 10:00 p. m., undercover officers Mahoney, Zackman and Flynn were driving an unmarked car north on Third Avenue when Officer Mahoney noticed defendants Gregory Valdez and William Beedles on Ninth Street "lurking" near a doorway situated about 70 yards east of Third Avenue. East Ninth Street between Second and Third Avenues is lined with commercial buildings. Except for an occasional night light, the lights were out in all the stores on the street and the protective gates drawn. Officer Mahoney, who had "worked the area a long time", knew that sidewalk gratings which covered shaftways leading to basements abutted the building line of all of the stores on the block. The officers made a U-turn and parked their car on the northwest corner of the intersection, from which they could observe defendants' activities.

Defendants, "disheveled", stood opposite each other, one leaning against a car and the other inside a doorwell. They traded positions intermittently and eyed passing pedestrians. Officer Zackman testified that defendants' conduct led him to believe they were intent on robbing a pedestrian. Approximately ten minutes after the officers first noticed them, defendants moved to the front of a building at 212 East Ninth Street. Mahoney also knew that this building contained a basement storage room. Piles of garbage, however, blocked the officers' view of the grating ^* in front of the building.

After several minutes Beedles walked over to the building line and "seem(ed) to disappear into the sidewalk" while Valdez remained at sidewalk level, looking up and down the street. Although Officer Mahoney could not see if the grating had been opened, he believed that Beedles had descended the stairs of the shaftway to the basement. Beedles reappeared after about five minutes, and the two men walked in the direction of Third Avenue. When they reached the corner, a marked police car entered the street and defendants paused and ceased talking. After the car left the block they reversed their direction, but walked past 212 East Ninth Street as a second marked car entered the block. As soon as it had driven away, defendants again walked back to the building, and crossed over to the north side of the street. A third radio car came down the street, and after it left the block the men hurriedly re-crossed the street to 212 East Ninth Street.

Once again Beedles disappeared from view, while Valdez, looking up and down the street, remained on the sidewalk. After about a minute the officers saw Beedles handing up two sealed cardboard crates to Valdez, who, carrying the crates, walked about ten feet westerly in the direction of Third Avenue and then stopped. When Beedles again disappeared into the shaftway, the officers "headed over there" in their vehicle.

As the officers pulled up in front of the building the car's siren was accidentally activated, prompting both defendants to look in their direction. Beedles, with one foot on the stairway and one foot on the sidewalk, was holding three boxes in his hands. Officer Mahoney observed that two of the boxes were labelled "Starkist Tuna Fish" and appeared to be sealed.

Displaying their shields, the officers emerged from their car and identified themselves. Officer Zackman had his gun drawn. Beedles dropped the three boxes to the sidewalk and began to walk away in the opposite direction from Valdez who, on seeing the officers, placed the two boxes he was carrying on a garbage pail. At that point the officers advised defendants that they were under arrest, to which Beedles responded, "You ain't got us for nothing." The arrest took place at approximately 10:30 p. m.

The officers found that the grating in front of the building had been pulled open. A stairway led to an unlighted basement storage room in which crates of foodstuff were stacked. The crates which defendants had been carrying were examined. Four contained cans of tuna fish, the other paper cups.

Defendants were taken to the precinct where they were advised of their constitutional rights. Neither was questioned, however. In searching Beedles the officers found a meat cleaver inside his boot. Later, as defendants were seated together in a room with Officer Flynn, who was occupied with paper work, Officer Zackman, standing in the hallway outside the room, overheard Valdez say to Beedles, "Man, it's okay, my brother-in-law is the manager."

The court credited the officers' testimony but, finding that defendants' conduct at the time of the officers' approach justified no more than the minimal level of intrusion, i. e., asking questions to elicit information, suppressed the boxes and the meat cleaver, as well as the statements made on the street and at the precinct. Noting that the officers had no reason to suspect that defendants were armed or posed a danger to the officers' safety, the court held that their approach with a gun drawn constituted an arrest and that defendants' relinquishment of the crates was a direct consequence of the illegal arrest, not an...