People v. Mejias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mejias

63 A.D.3d 526, 881 N.Y.S.2d 78

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 526 (People v. Mejias) 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. Mejias, 63 A.D.3d 526, 881 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered January 10, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The arresting officer saw defendant and another man approach each other, look around as if to check if anyone was watching, engage in a transfer of a [527]*527small object, and immediately leave each other without any kind of social interaction. Based upon his experience and training, the officer recognized this behavior as a possible drug transaction (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]). Accordingly, the officer had, at the very least, a founded suspicion of criminality which justified a common-law inquiry (see People v Sylvain, 33 AD3d 330, 331 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 904 [2006]), and we need not decide whether these observations provided an even higher level of suspicion. The officer did not seize or detain defendant until after the pistol that defendant was attempting to conceal came into plain view.

The court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to an assistant district attorney, since the statement was sufficiently attenuated from the taint of an earlier statement made at the time of arrest, which was not preceded by Miranda warnings. The post -Miranda statement was made approximately 11 hours later, at a different location, and to a different interrogator (see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130-134 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered January 10, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The arresting officer saw defendant and another man approach each other, look around as if to check if anyone was watching, engage in a transfer of a [527]*527small object, and immediately leave each other without any kind of social interaction. Based upon his experience and training, the officer recognized this behavior as a possible drug transaction (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]). Accordingly, the officer had, at the very least, a founded suspicion of criminality which justified a common-law inquiry (see People v Sylvain, 33 AD3d 330, 331 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 904 [2006]), and we need not decide whether these observations provided an even higher level of suspicion. The officer did not seize or detain defendant until after the pistol that defendant was attempting to conceal came into plain view.

The court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to an assistant district attorney, since the statement was sufficiently attenuated from the taint of an earlier statement made at the time of arrest, which was not preceded by Miranda warnings. The post -Miranda statement was made approximately 11 hours later, at a different location, and to a different interrogator (see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130-134 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 526, 881 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mejias-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack