People v. Delacruz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delacruz

294 A.D.2d 261, 743 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 261 (People v. Delacruz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Delacruz, 294 A.D.2d 261, 743 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dora Irizarry, J., at hearing; Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 28, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention was established by the arresting officer’s testimony that he received a radio message from the “ghost” officer describing two men, one of whom was defendant, who had been observed by the ghost conversing with the undercover officer, followed by a second message from the ghost that there had been a “positive buy,” and repeating the descriptions of the two men. Given the arresting officer’s hearing testimony concerning the structure and functioning of the undercover buy operation, it was reasonable for the hearing court to infer that the ghost officer’s testimony that defendant was a participant in the drug transaction was the product of first-hand observations and a signal from the purchasing of[262]*262fleer (People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 422; People v Shorter, 275 AD2d 253, lv denied 95 NY2d 969).

The trial court’s modification of its Sandoval ruling was proper because defendant’s contradictory responses opened the door to the People’s inquiry (see, People v Cooper, 92 NY2d 968; People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646). Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dora Irizarry, J., at hearing; Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 28, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention was established by the arresting officer’s testimony that he received a radio message from the “ghost” officer describing two men, one of whom was defendant, who had been observed by the ghost conversing with the undercover officer, followed by a second message from the ghost that there had been a “positive buy,” and repeating the descriptions of the two men. Given the arresting officer’s hearing testimony concerning the structure and functioning of the undercover buy operation, it was reasonable for the hearing court to infer that the ghost officer’s testimony that defendant was a participant in the drug transaction was the product of first-hand observations and a signal from the purchasing of[262]*262fleer (People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 422; People v Shorter, 275 AD2d 253, lv denied 95 NY2d 969).

The trial court’s modification of its Sandoval ruling was proper because defendant’s contradictory responses opened the door to the People’s inquiry (see, People v Cooper, 92 NY2d 968; People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646). Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 261, 743 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delacruz-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack