Summary
holding if police were not authorized to detain defendant, defendant was free to walk away from the arresting officer and could not be charged with obstructing government administration or interfering with an officer in performance of an official function
Summary of this case from State v. LewisOpinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Putnam County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.
The defendant contends that the evidence proffered by the People was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 195.05). We agree. As charged in the underlying indictment, which also included a charge of assault in the second degree, of which the defendant was acquitted, the defendant was alleged to have struggled with the police to avoid being handcuffed, and walked away from the arresting officer, ignoring orders to stop. However, a defendant may not be convicted of obstructing governmental administration or interfering with an officer in the performance of an official function unless it is established that the police were engaged in authorized conduct (see, People v. Vogel, 116 Misc.2d 332; People v. Simon, 145 Misc.2d 518; People v. Stumpp, 129 Misc.2d 703, affd 132 Misc.2d 3). In the instant case, the police were not authorized to attempt to detain the defendant because, under the circumstances, they did not possess a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity (cf., People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). Thus, the defendant was free to walk away, and any attempt to detain him was unauthorized (see, People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, cert denied 449 U.S. 1023).
Moreover, as the police were not authorized to place the defendant under arrest, his conviction for resisting arrest must also be set aside (see, People v. Peacock, 68 N.Y.2d 675).
In light of our determination on the foregoing issues, we need not consider the defendant's remaining contentions. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ, concur.