People v. Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583 (1991)
The “fellow officer” rule, which allows a police officer to rely on information from another officer to make an arrest, can extend to auxiliary police officers when they possess sufficient training and information to establish probable cause.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the “fellow officer” rule applies to auxiliary police officers. An auxiliary officer, Hernandez, received a radio dispatch about a murder suspect. Based on this and a tip, Hernandez identified a suspect, Rosario, who was then apprehended by uniformed officers based on Hernandez’s information. The Court held that the fellow officer rule did apply to auxiliary officers like Hernandez who had received training and possessed information establishing probable cause. This ruling affirmed Rosario’s conviction, finding the arrest lawful because the uniformed officers reasonably relied on Hernandez’s assessment.
Facts
Auxiliary Police Officer Hernandez, while on patrol, received a radio run describing a suspect in a recent fatal stabbing. The description included details of the suspect’s appearance and clothing. Shortly after, a civilian told Hernandez he had seen the suspect. Hernandez relayed this information to uniformed police officers. Minutes later, Hernandez spotted someone matching the suspect description. The individual, after noticing Hernandez, changed direction. Hernandez then directed Sergeant Belton, another officer, to the suspect, identifying him as a murder suspect. Belton apprehended the suspect, Wilfredo Rosario.
Procedural History
Rosario was arrested and subsequently convicted of second-degree murder. Prior to trial, Rosario moved to suppress evidence, including jewelry, his station house statement, and the lineup identification, arguing an illegal seizure. The hearing court denied the motion, finding probable cause based on Hernandez’s information. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Rosario appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing the “fellow officer” rule was improperly applied to auxiliary officers.
Issue(s)
Whether the “fellow officer” rule, which permits a police officer to rely on information from another officer to make an arrest, applies to auxiliary police officers who are not considered “police officers” or “peace officers” under all circumstances?
Holding
Yes, because the auxiliary officer possessed sufficient training and information to reasonably believe that the defendant had committed the homicide, thereby establishing probable cause.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the “fellow officer” rule allows officers to rely on information from other officers or departments, assuming the source possesses the necessary probable cause. When challenged, the prosecution must prove the transmitting officer had probable cause. The Court acknowledged auxiliary officers’ training isn’t as extensive as regular police officers’, but their training and role in assisting law enforcement justify applying the rule. The Court emphasized the auxiliary officer’s function as the “eyes and ears” of the police department. The Court distinguished this case from situations involving untrained civilians, highlighting the structured training and defined role of auxiliary officers. The Court noted that “the training they receive and the purposes they serve in aiding law enforcement provide sound policy reasons for applying the ‘fellow officer’ rule to auxiliary officers and militate against denying the police the benefit of their aide and assistance”. Finally, the court stated that while the auxiliary officer may only be considered a peace officer under limited circumstances, this lack of general arrest authority did not preclude application of the fellow officer rule, similar to how the rule applies to out-of-state law enforcement officers.