People v. Valentine

• Decision Date: 24 March 1966
• Citation: 17 N.Y.2d 128,269 N.Y.S.2d 111,216 N.E.2d 321
• Parties: , 216 N.E.2d 321 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rudolph VALENTINE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 111

269 N.Y.S.2d 111

17 N.Y.2d 128, 216 N.E.2d 321

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rudolph VALENTINE, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 24, 1966.

Joseph A. Solovei, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty. (Raymond J. Scanlan and Harry Brodbar, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

BURKE, Judge.

The defendant appeals, pursuant to permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Term, Second Department, which affirmed a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York convicting defendant of violating sections 974 and 975 of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40.

The arresting officer testified at the trial that, on the afternoon of September 23, 1964, the defendant was standing on a street corner in Brooklyn. During a period of more than 20 minutes, from a vantage point 50 to 60 feet away in a parked automobile, the officer observed six unknown persons approach the defendant. Each of these persons engaged the defendant in a short conversation, and, at the conclusion thereof, each was seen to hand him money in bill form. On three of these occasions the defendant was observed making notations on a slip of paper. Then, at approximately 1:30 P.M., the officer approached the defendant, identified himself as a police officer, and placed him under arrest. The officer testified that prior to the arrest he had not overheard any of the conversations between the defendant and the unknown persons, nor was he able to see the notations made by the defendant on the piece of paper.

Following the arrest, the officer seized a slip of paper from the defendant's hand and took him to his car where he was searched. At this time two more pieces of paper were found on the defendant's person. All three pieces of paper bore numbers of three digits which the officer, conceded to be an expert in policy operations, testified to be mutuel race horse policy numbers. During the trial the Judge conducted a Voir dire examination at the request of the defense upon an objection to the People's introduction of the first slip into evidence. At the conclusion of the Voir dire examination the objections of the defense to the introduction of the slips were denied.

Defendant argues on the appeal to this court that the arrest in the street was unlawful, and that, since the incident search was made without a warrant, the slips of paper introduced as evidence against him were illegally obtained. The applicable law is to the contrary.

Prior to July 1, 1963, an arrest without a warrant for the commission of a misdemeanor was unlawful unless the arresting officer observed the crime being committed in his presence. (People v. Moore, 11 N.Y.2d 271, 228 N.Y.S.2d 822, 183 N.E.2d 225 (1962); People v. Caliente, 12 N.Y.2d 89, 236 N.Y.S.2d 945, 187 N.E.2d 550 (1962).) It was clear from these decisions that under the statute in effect At that time the police officer's observations prior to the arrest had to amount to enough evidence to convict the defendant of a crime. But as of July 1, 1963, the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with a police officer's arrest for a misdemeanor was amended to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

' § 177. In what cases allowed. A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person,

'1. For a crime, committed or attempted In his presence, or where a police officer * * * has reasonable grounds for believing that a crime is being committed in his presence.' (The italicized portion of this statute was enacted in 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.)

This amendment has the effect of allowing a police officer to arrest a person when there is Probable cause for believing that the person is committing a misdemeanor in his presence. The change allows the same standard of probable cause justifying an arrest without a warrant to prevail for misdemeanors committed in the presence of a police officer as for felonies.

The most recent pronouncements of this court on probable cause for an arrest are People v. Brady (16 N.Y.2d 186, 264 N.Y.S.2d 361, 211 N.E.2d 815 (1965)) and People v. White (16 N.Y.2d 270, 266 N.Y.S.2d 100, 213 N.E.2d 438 (1965)). In White the court held that there was probable cause for an arrest without a warrant and an incident search with no more in the record 'than a showing that a known addict holding money in his hand and talking to the suspected drug peddler quickly put the money away and left the scene when the detective approached' (16 N.Y.2d, p. 273, 266...