You are here: / / Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible...
,

Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s statement should have been suppressed because the police arrested him in the absence of probable cause.  Two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest were in the backseat of a legally parked vehicle.  Defendant was in the driver’s seat, fumbling with the ignition keys when the police first saw him.  The police pulled him from the vehicle and arrested him.  The Second Department found the arrest premature. Because of the presence of the two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest, there was only a reasonable suspicion of the defendant’s involvement which justified only forcible detention for a brief investigation:

The hearing testimony established that at approximately 8:00 a.m. on June 10, 2009, the police received a radio transmission regarding a robbery in progress, perpetrated by two black males, at a Queens residence. The police activated their sirens and lights and went to the specified house, arriving within two minutes of receiving the transmission. When the police arrived, two of the complainants, still gagged and partially bound, were on the porch of the house. The complainants used gestures to direct the officers’ attention to two men, Myers and Santos, who were walking on the sidewalk, about four houses away. Myers and Santos, who were the only civilians on the block, started running, and the officers chased them. During the chase, Santos discarded an object, which the police later recovered and found to be a gun. When Myers and Santos turned a corner several blocks from the complainants’ house, the officers lost sight of them briefly. When one of the officers turned the corner, he did not see any people, but saw the rear passenger door on a sport utility vehicle being closed. The vehicle was legally parked and the engine was off. The officer ran to the vehicle and peered inside through the tinted windows. After spotting Myers and Santos in the rear passenger seat, the officer “punched” the driver’s side window to alert the driver not to drive away. The officer pulled the driver’s door open and saw the defendant in the driver’s seat, “fumbling” with the keys and trying to put them in the ignition. The officer pulled the defendant out of the car, placed him face-down on the ground, and handcuffed him. Eventually, the defendant was placed in a police car. People v Delvillartron, 2014 NY Slip Op 06327, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AFTER FAILING TO ARGUE THAT DEFENDANTS WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, COULD NOT RAISE DEFENDANTS’ WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO COMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTY BY AMENDING THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THIS INQUEST ON DAMAGES; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEFAULTED ON LIABILITY IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DEFENDANT APPEARED FOR THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Submission of Affidavit of Merit in Reply Improper​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth... Marriage of an Incapacitated Person Properly Annulled