Summary
In People v. Lopez, 206 AD2d 894, supra, the prosecution argued that an arrest was proper based on an outstanding warrant, but failed at the hearing to produce the warrant.
Summary of this case from People v. LanierOpinion
July 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant at the time of his arrest. The People sought to justify the arrest solely on the basis of an outstanding warrant, but failed to produce the warrant at the suppression hearing. As a result, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance (see, People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 415; People v. De Frain, 204 A.D.2d 1002; People v. Mercado, 197 A.D.2d 898; but see, People v Szczepanik, 55 A.D.2d 702 ).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the People's motion to reopen the suppression hearing. "There was no justification here to afford the People a second chance to succeed where once they had tried and failed" (People v. Bryant, 37 N.Y.2d 208, 211; accord, People v. Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636, 643).
Because the only evidence supporting the single charge against defendant was suppressed, the court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.