People v. Brady, 16 N.Y.2d 186 (1965)
Probable cause for an arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances, including observed conduct and prior knowledge, would lead a reasonable and prudent peace officer to believe that a crime has been committed and the defendant committed it.
Summary
Brady was convicted of criminally concealing stolen property. The police, aware of recent burglaries in a hotel and Brady’s prior suspicious activity there, observed him acting suspiciously outside the hotel. He repeatedly examined “little white boxes” and denied his identity when stopped. The court held the arrest lawful, finding probable cause based on the officers’ observations and prior knowledge. Brady’s admission during trial that the stolen jewelry exceeded $100 in value removed the misdemeanor charge from consideration, negating the need for the jury to consider it.
Facts
Police officers were aware of a series of burglaries at a specific hotel.
Months prior to the arrest, Brady had been stopped on an upper floor of the hotel with keys to five different rooms.
On the night of the arrest, officers observed Brady leaving the hotel.
They saw him repeatedly take “little white boxes” out of his pockets and examine their contents as he walked along the street.
When stopped by the officers, Brady denied that his name was Brady and denied being at the hotel that evening.
During the trial, Brady admitted the value of the stolen jewelry exceeded $100.
Procedural History
Brady was convicted in the trial court of criminally concealing and withholding stolen property as a felony.
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and granted a new trial.
The People and Brady cross-appealed by permission to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the police had probable cause to arrest Brady, making the subsequent search incident to that arrest lawful.
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that if they found the value of the stolen property to be less than $100, they should find the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor.
Holding
Yes, because the officers’ observations of Brady’s suspicious behavior, combined with their prior knowledge of his activities at the hotel, were sufficient to establish probable cause for a reasonable officer to believe that a crime had been committed and that Brady had committed it.
No, because Brady’s admission during trial that the value of the stolen jewelry exceeded $100 removed the issue of value from the case, making a charge on the misdemeanor offense unnecessary.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that the police officers had probable cause to arrest Brady based on the totality of the circumstances. The officers knew of recent burglaries at the hotel, and that Brady had previously been found on an upper floor with keys to multiple rooms. They observed him leaving the hotel and suspiciously examining small boxes. His subsequent denial of his identity further supported the probable cause. The court quoted Bell v. United States, stating that the officers observed the standard of what would be probable cause to “a reasonable, cautious and prudent peace officer.” Because the arrest was lawful, the search at the precinct station was a valid search incident to arrest.
Regarding the failure to instruct on the misdemeanor offense, the court cited People v. Walker, noting that when a defendant admits a fact in open court, that fact is established, and no further evidence is needed. Brady’s admission that the jewelry’s value exceeded $100 removed the question of value from the jury’s consideration. The court also cited People v. Mussenden, stating that “the submission of a lesser degree or an included crime is justified only where there is some basis in the evidence for finding the accused innocent of the higher crime, and yet guilty of the lower one.” Since Brady admitted the value exceeded $100, there was no basis for finding him guilty of the misdemeanor but not the felony.