New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Rosemond

  • People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101 (1970): Establishing Probable Cause for Arrest Based on Context and Evasive Answers

    People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101 (1970)

    An officer has probable cause to arrest when the surrounding circumstances, including the time of night, the location, and unsatisfactory responses to questioning, would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether police had probable cause to arrest the defendant and whether evidence obtained during the arrest was admissible. The Court held that the arresting officer had sufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the circumstances and the defendant’s unsatisfactory response to questioning in a high-crime area late at night. The retrieval of a hypodermic needle was therefore warranted, and it was admissible as evidence. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence to support that the defendant was in imminent danger of becoming dependent on heroin based on his admissions and the corroborating medical testimony.

    Facts

    The arresting officer encountered the defendant and his companions late at night in a construction area known for numerous prior burglaries and largely consisting of abandoned buildings. The officer questioned the defendant and his companions, and their responses were deemed unsatisfactory. Following the unsatisfactory responses, the officer arrested the defendant and retrieved a hypodermic needle. The defendant admitted to the arresting officer and the examining physician, a recognized expert, that he had been using heroin for 6 to 12 months prior to his arrest.

    Procedural History

    The Criminal Court originally sentenced the defendant to the custody of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission upon his conviction of attempted possession of a hypodermic needle. The judgment was later modified. This appeal concerned the reinstatement of the original judgment.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the arresting officer had sufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the circumstances.

    2. Whether the hypodermic needle was lawfully retrieved and admissible as evidence.

    3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to find that the defendant was in imminent danger of becoming dependent upon heroin.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because under the circumstances, including the time of night, the place (a construction area consisting largely of abandoned buildings where there had been numerous prior burglaries), the arresting officer had sufficient probable cause to arrest defendant and his companions, following the unsatisfactory response to his questions.

    2. Yes, because the officer was warranted in the retrieval, and the admission of the hypodermic needle into evidence against the defendant was warranted.

    3. Yes, because there was sufficient evidence based on defendant’s admissions to both the arresting officer and the examining physician, a recognized expert in the field, of the use of heroin for 6 to 12 months prior to his arrest and the examination of defendant following his arrest, corroborating these admissions, to find that defendant was in “imminent danger of becoming dependent” upon heroin.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the determination of probable cause must be based on the totality of the circumstances. The Court emphasized the significance of the time of night, the location (a high-crime area with abandoned buildings), and the unsatisfactory responses provided by the defendant and his companions to the officer’s questions. Taken together, these factors provided the officer with a reasonable basis to believe that criminal activity was afoot, thus justifying the arrest. The Court cited People v. Rosemond, 26 Y 2d 101, in support. Because the arrest was lawful, the retrieval of the hypodermic needle was also lawful, making it admissible as evidence. The court also considered the defendant’s admissions to both the officer and the examining physician, along with the physician’s expert testimony corroborating the admissions. This evidence was deemed sufficient to establish that the defendant was in imminent danger of becoming dependent on heroin, as required by Mental Hygiene Law, § 201, subd. 2. The court referenced People v. Baldwin, 25 Y 2d 66, 70, in its analysis concerning the admissibility of the evidence.

  • People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101 (1970): Lawful Street Inquiry and Probable Cause Based on Answers

    People v. Rosemond, 26 N.Y.2d 101 (1970)

    A police officer’s common-law right to inquire about unusual or suspicious circumstances on the street is not limited by the statutory requirements of reasonable suspicion needed for a stop and frisk; probable cause for arrest can arise from the answers to a lawful street inquiry combined with observed circumstances.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the legality of a street inquiry and subsequent arrest. Police observed Rosemond and another man entering an apartment building empty-handed and exiting shortly after, carrying bags. When questioned, Rosemond claimed he didn’t know what was in the bag he was carrying. This response, combined with the officers’ observations, provided probable cause for arrest. The court held that the initial inquiry was lawful under the common-law duty of police to investigate suspicious circumstances, and Rosemond’s evasive answer justified further action leading to the discovery of stolen property. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no violation of Rosemond’s Fourth Amendment rights.

    Facts

    A police officer observed Rosemond and another man entering an apartment building empty-handed. A short time later, the officer saw them exiting the same building, one carrying a plaid zippered suitcase and the other a plaid plastic shopping bag. The officer followed them and, as they were entering a hallway, approached and asked Rosemond what he had in the package. Rosemond replied that he did not know. The officer then discovered that an apartment in the building they had exited had been burglarized.

    Procedural History

    Rosemond and his companion were indicted for burglary, petit larceny, and receiving stolen property. A motion to suppress the evidence, arguing an unlawful search, was denied. Rosemond pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision by a divided court, and Rosemond appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Section 180-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the exclusive basis for a policeman to stop and question a citizen.
    2. Whether Rosemond’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the police conduct in this case.

    Holding

    1. No, because Section 180-a does not limit the pre-existing common-law right of police to inquire about unusual or suspicious circumstances.
    2. No, because the initial street inquiry was lawful, and the answers given, combined with the officer’s observations, provided probable cause for arrest.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that Section 180-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which addresses police inquiry under specific circumstances (reasonable suspicion of a felony), does not eliminate the broader, pre-existing common-law right and duty of police to inquire about unusual situations. The court stated, “To be alert, aware and knowledgeable of street events would seem the fundamental test of competent and skillful police work.”

    The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion of a felony should not be the sole criterion for inquiry, and inquiry is not prohibited even if most of what it elicits may be innocent. The court provided an example: “For example, men carrying a cash register out of a grocery store may very well be taking it out for repair; but they may not; and under conditions of manner and attitude difficult to lay down categorically, police would be quite warranted in finding out by asking questions.”

    The court distinguished this case from others involving stop and frisk or other physical actions. The crucial difference was that the police only asked questions, and the answers themselves provided probable cause. Specifically, Rosemond’s statement that he did not know what was in the bag he was carrying, in the context of having just exited an apartment building with the bag, created a reasonable ground to believe that a larceny had occurred. The court analogized the facts to People v. Entrialgo, where the results of a street inquiry justified further police action.

    The court concluded that there was no evidence of official compulsion during the street questioning. The fact that uniformed officers asked questions did not automatically make the interrogation coercive. Therefore, Rosemond’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.