PEOPLE v. BAILEY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nace BAILEY, Appellant.

Decided: June 20, 2002

Before CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ. Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant. Paul A. Clyne, District Attorney, Albany (Bradley A. Sherman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), rendered April 10, 2001 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

 The sole contention advanced on appeal is that Supreme Court (Lamont, J.) erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress his statements as the product of a warrantless arrest without probable cause.   We disagree, and accordingly affirm.   It is undisputed that the basis for the arrest was the sworn statement of defendant's girlfriend relating defendant's admission to her that he had been involved in the subject burglary.   Because the girlfriend was not an undisclosed informant and her sworn statement concerning defendant's admission did not constitute inadmissible hearsay, the Aguilar-Spinelli test (Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637;  Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723) is inapplicable (see, People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90, 93-94, 378 N.Y.S.2d 660, 341 N.E.2d 227;  People v. Bourdon, 258 A.D.2d 810, 811, 686 N.Y.S.2d 162, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 897, 689 N.Y.S.2d 709, 711 N.E.2d 985).   Such a “sworn statement of an identified member of the community attesting to facts directly and personally observed by him [or her]” is of itself sufficient to support a warrantless arrest (People v. Bourdon, supra, at 811, 686 N.Y.S.2d 162 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see, People v. David, 234 A.D.2d 787, 788, 652 N.Y.S.2d 324, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1034, 659 N.Y.S.2d 864, 681 N.E.2d 1311).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Copied to clipboard