People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415 (1993)
Probable cause to arrest can be established based on information provided by a New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) employee regarding unauthorized persons in a vacant HPD building.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. An HPD employee informed police that unauthorized persons were inside a supposedly vacant HPD apartment building. Upon entering the apartment, police found the defendant and others, arrested them for trespassing, and discovered cocaine in the defendant’s pocket during a search. The Court of Appeals determined that the Appellate Division’s finding of probable cause was a mixed question of law and fact, supported by the record, and therefore beyond further review by the Court of Appeals.
Facts
On May 31, 1991, Albert Tyson, an employee of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), informed police officers at the 28th precinct that unauthorized individuals were present in an apartment within an HPD building that was supposed to be vacant. Police officers proceeded to the apartment, where they encountered several individuals, including the defendant, Mendoza.
Procedural History
Mendoza was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree after a search revealed seven vials of cocaine in her pocket. She moved to suppress the cocaine and statements made after the arrest. The suppression court denied the motion. Mendoza pleaded guilty after the denial of her suppression motion, but appealed, arguing the arrest was unlawful. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the police had probable cause to arrest Mendoza. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for trespassing based on information provided by an HPD employee that unauthorized persons were in a vacant HPD apartment.
Holding
Yes, because the Appellate Division’s determination of probable cause was a mixed question of law and fact, which was supported by evidence in the record and, therefore, beyond the Court of Appeals’ further review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on precedent establishing the standard of review for probable cause determinations. The court stated that the determination of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact. Citing People v Diaz, 81 NY2d 106, 108; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 420; People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477-478, the Court reasoned that where the Appellate Division makes a determination of probable cause and that determination has support in the record, the Court of Appeals cannot further review that determination. Because the information from the HPD employee provided a reasonable basis to believe that trespassing was occurring, the Court held that the Appellate Division’s finding of probable cause was supported by the record.