The People, etc., respondent, v. Dominique J. Jackson, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The People, etc., respondent, v. Dominique J. Jackson, appellant.

2015–12235

Decided: July 25, 2018

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ. Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Timothy R. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.

Argued—April 2, 2018

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joel L. Blumenfeld, J.), rendered November 24, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to supress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny suppression of a gun recovered from the defendant's person.  The testimony at the suppression hearing demonstrated that a radio call, along with observations made by the officer at the scene and statements the officer heard from individuals at the scene, established that the officer had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, which, by virtue of the defendant's flight, ripened into reasonable suspicion to pursue him and detain him (see People v. Sierra, 83 N.Y.2d 928;  People v. Woods, 115 AD3d 997;  People v. Soscia, 96 AD3d 1081).  During the lawful stop of the defendant, a gun was recovered inside a hat that was in the defendant's hand, giving the officers probable cause to arrest him (see People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223;  People v. Wider, 172 A.D.2d 573, 574).

Additionally, since the pursuit and subsequent arrest were lawful, the defendant's subsequent written statement to police cannot be deemed the fruit of the poisonous tree subject to the exclusionary rule (see People v. Foster, 153 AD3d 853).

BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court