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, etc., appellant, v. James Miles, respondent.
Argued-February 18, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered May 20, 2010, as, upon reargument of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements to law enforcement officials and physical evidence, adhered to the original determination in an order dated April 20, 2010, granting that branch of the motion.
ORDERED that the order entered May 20, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the arresting officers lacked an objective, credible reason for approaching the stopped car in which the defendant was a passenger, identifying themselves as police officers, and shining at least one flashlight into the car (see People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 984; see also People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 525; People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 194). The officer who testified at the suppression hearing failed to articulate any reason for approaching the vehicle other than the car was parked outside a bar in an area where there had been “community complaints” of gang and drug activity, which, standing alone, did not constitute a sufficient basis for the officer to approach the vehicle and request information (see People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d at 526; cf. People v. Reyes, 83 N.Y.2d 945, 946, cert denied 513 U.S. 991). Accordingly, the physical evidence seized and the statements made by the defendant were properly suppressed, and upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, ENG and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010-05640 (Ind.No. 58 /10)
Decided: March 15, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)