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, Appellant, v. Edward MONTILLA, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), entered on or about October 15, 1998, which granted defendant Edward Montilla's motion to suppress physical evidence and his statement to police, reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion it entails against the precipitating and attending circumstances (People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). The focus of the court's inquiry is whether the police conduct was reasonable in view of the totality of the circumstances (People v. Batista, 88 N.Y.2d 650, 653, 649 N.Y.S.2d 356, 672 N.E.2d 581; People v. Smith, 228 A.D.2d 173, 644 N.Y.S.2d 495, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1071, 651 N.Y.S.2d 415, 674 N.E.2d 345). Here, the general description of the robbery suspect and his location provided in the radio run, together with the police officer's arrival at the scene within minutes of the crime and his observation of defendant, who matched the description, provided the officer with a common law right to inquire. Defendant's flight before the police could make any inquiry created a reasonable suspicion of criminality justifying the pursuit (People v. Lipsey, 247 A.D.2d 246, 668 N.Y.S.2d 603, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 974, 672 N.Y.S.2d 854, 695 N.E.2d 723). Accordingly, the hearing court's suppression of the gun defendant discarded in his flight from the police was in error.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
All concur except ELLERIN, J.P. who dissents and would affirm for the reasons stated by Bamberger, J.
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: January 13, 2000
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)