People v. Perez
142 A.D.3d 410
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Defendant was in a NYCHA building under investigation for a pattern of robberies; officers conducting vertical patrol in plain clothes with shields around their necks.
- Upon opening, defendant stepped from the elevator, retreated back in, and pressed the elevator button to close it, prompting officers to ascend the stairs to locate him.
- On the ninth floor, defendant faced away with hood up; officer observed a bulge under his sleeve and asked to see hands; defendant refused to comply and was detained, leading to the discovery of a two-foot machete and recovery of $175.
- A robbery had been reported nearby earlier that evening describing two suspects, one matching defendant's clothing; the complainant later identified defendant from a showup while he was handcuffed in the building lobby.
- Defendant was transported to the precinct; during a debriefing, he spontaneously stated information about another suspect; Miranda warnings were not given prior to these statements.
- Supreme Court denied suppression of the physical evidence, the showup identification, and the statements; remand was ordered to address youthful offender status and predicate-violent-felony issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial encounter was lawful and justified | People: building trespass history plus defendant's conduct justified inquiry. | Ruth: avoidance behavior alone did not support level-three intrusion or seizure. | Encounter justified; disclosure and follow-up warranted. |
| Whether the frisk/search for a weapon was justified by the circumstances | People: bulge and failure to comply supported reasonable safety concern. | Defendant: bulge lacked identifiable weapon and frisk was unjustified. | Frisk/search for weapon upheld; danger to officers supported by totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the showup identification was admissible and not unduly suggestive | People: showup near the scene timely and corroborating description allowed reliability. | Defendant: identification tainted by prior arrest and circumstances. | Showup appropriate and identification not unduly suggestive. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 (1976) (establishes the four-level framework for police-citizen encounters)
- People v. Johnson, 109 AD3d 449 (1st Dept 2013) (flight/avoidance does not by itself justify level-three intrusion)
- People v. Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267 (1980) (flight + specific circumstances can justify investigative intrusion)
- People v. Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056 (1993) (right to be left alone; escalation requires correct framework)
- People v. Lyles, 49 NY2d 286 (1980) (establishes spontaneity of statements and non-interrogation context)