People v. Flanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flanders

192 A.D.2d 1072, 596 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1072 (People v. Flanders) 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. Flanders, 192 A.D.2d 1072, 596 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements. In our view, the record supports the court’s determination that the police had probable cause to take defendant into custody and that his statements, made after he was advised of his rights, were voluntary and admissible.

Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant a conviction but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed, or that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423). The record establishes that the victim’s grandson, who knew defendant, observed him in the car. A police officer also observed defendant in the car. When that officer approached the car, defendant opened the door, knocked the officer backwards, and fled the scene. He was seen running away by another officer who observed that defendant matched the suspect’s description broadcast over the police radio. After being pursued, he was apprehended, returned to the scene and given his Miranda warnings. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements. In our view, the record supports the court’s determination that the police had probable cause to take defendant into custody and that his statements, made after he was advised of his rights, were voluntary and admissible.

Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant a conviction but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed, or that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423). The record establishes that the victim’s grandson, who knew defendant, observed him in the car. A police officer also observed defendant in the car. When that officer approached the car, defendant opened the door, knocked the officer backwards, and fled the scene. He was seen running away by another officer who observed that defendant matched the suspect’s description broadcast over the police radio. After being pursued, he was apprehended, returned to the scene and given his Miranda warnings. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1072, 596 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flanders-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack