Published on:

Defendant Contends Police Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion for Search

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said an accused man appealed from a summary judgment of the Supreme Court. He was convicted for violating criminal law through committing drug crimes. The accused man was sentenced for his alleged criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, crack possession in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said after hearing, the appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the accused man’s compilation of motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

The accused man was observed by the undercover police officers selling crack cocaine to the passengers of a BMW automobile during a drug crime surveillance operation. The BMW was stopped nearby and the passengers were arrested for a vial of crack cocaine possession that was recovered from the floor of the car. When the back-up officers arrived at the scene of the sale to make the arrests, they approached the accused man because he matched the description of the drug seller broadcast over the police radio. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said as the police officers approached, the accused man fled, dropping a plastic bag containing 100 vials of crack cocaine during the pursuit. On appeal, the accused man argues that the back-up officers did not possess a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, allowing them to detain or pursue him and, therefore, the crack cocaine he discarded during the chase should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention. A said the accused man makes the same argument as to the crack cocaine possession that was found on the floor of the BMW automobile.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said because the accused man did not move to suppress the crack cocaine found in the BMW automobile, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, the accused man failed to articulate the requisite privacy interest to warrant a finding that he had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence and, as the discovery and seizure of the crack cocaine in the BMW occurred prior to the police’s attempted detention of the accused man, it could not have been a fruit of that detention. With regard to the crack cocaine discarded during the flight, the court finds that the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, correctly denied suppression.

A said the Court of Appeals noted that when a police officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, the criminal law authorizes a forcible stop and detention of that person. A reasonable suspicion is sufficient to permit a police officer to pursue a fleeing offender. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that reasonable suspicion is that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious person under the circumstances to believe that criminal law violation and activity is at hand. The facts reveal that the back-up officers, justifiably relying on the radio transmissions of their fellow officers describing the drug seller, possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion that the accused man had just committed a crime to both stop and forcibly detain him and to pursue him when he fled. Thus, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the crack cocaine abandoned by the accused man as he fled the police.

In addition, the accused man failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court finds that it was legally sufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of the court’s factual review power, the court is satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
Drug addiction always put us in the losing end. If you find yourself wrongfully charged of any legal action, feel free to contact the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates to find a Queens Drug Attorney that can defend you suitably in court. When your drug-related lawsuit resulted to crime, hire a Queens Criminal Lawyer to acquaint you with the proper action to pursue.

Contact Information