From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Soviero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 2004
772 N.Y.S.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2001-10546.

Decided March 1, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), dated November 29, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (McDonald, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Anthony V. Lombardino, Richmond Hill, N.Y. (Judah Maltz of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Brian Michels of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER and WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the arresting officer was sufficient to support the hearing court's determination that there was probable cause for his arrest. "Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a fellow officer * * * in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest" ( People v. Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416, 419 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, the arresting officer's testimony established that he received a radio transmission from the sergeant supervising a buy-and-bust operation, which indicated that the sergeant had observed the defendant smoking marijuana. Since the arresting officer was entitled to rely upon the information provided by the sergeant, the arrest was lawful, and the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which sought to suppress physical evidence ( see People v. Ketcham, supra; People v. Mims, 88 N.Y.2d 99; People v. Washington, 87 N.Y.2d 945; People v. Williams, 305 A.D.2d 802; People v. Dorta, 244 A.D.2d 566).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Soviero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 2004
772 N.Y.S.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Soviero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JOHN SOVIERO, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 2004

Citations

772 N.Y.S.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 710

Citing Cases

United States v. Fleming

Additionally, New York courts have held that police officers had probable cause to arrest defendants on drug…

The People v. Billy Grier

Here, the arresting officer's testimony established that he received a radio transmission from a fellow…