Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J., at suppression hearing; Michael Obus, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 12, 1995, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 8 years to life, 1 year and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. When the arresting officer arrived at the apartment building after being informed by three occupants of an apartment therein that a burglary was in progress, he found defendant, who was within the locked portion of the building, sweating and avoiding eye contact with the officer. These circumstances ripened into probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass when defendant, upon being questioned about his presence in the building, falsely told the officer that he was visiting a friend who lived a substantial distance from the building (see, People v. Judge, 236 A.D.2d 319, 654 N.Y.S.2d 17, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1037, 659 N.Y.S.2d 867, 681 N.E.2d 1314; People v. Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 201, 552 N.Y.S.2d 13, lv. denied, 76 N.Y.2d 742, 558 N.Y.S.2d 904, 557 N.E.2d 1200). The removal of two watches from defendant's pocket was proper as a search incident to arrest (People v. Kadan, 195 A.D.2d 174, 607 N.Y.S.2d 270, lv. denied, 83 N.Y.2d 854, 612 N.Y.S.2d 386, 634 N.E.2d 987), and defendant's statements, which were not the fruit of any unlawful seizure, were in any event not admitted at trial.
Since the trial evidence established probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass, his conviction of resisting arrest was supported by legally sufficient evidence.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 28, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)