THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS ROBERTS A/K/A THOMAS ROBINSON, A/K/A
LESTER BOWLES, APPELLANT.
79 N.Y.2d 964, 591 N.E.2d 1182, 582 N.Y.S.2d 996 (1992).
April 2, 1992
1 No. 136 SSM 14
Decided April 2, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., for Appellant.
Submitted by Diana Fabi Samson, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
An experienced undercover officer purchased a gram of cocaine from
defendant inside a Manhattan apartment, which provided the basis for a
search warrant for the premises. The officer returned to the apartment
one week after the first purchase and bought another gram of cocaine
from defendant. After leaving the building, the officer immediately
radioed to his backup team that the "buy had gone down." The backup
team appeared at the apartment within five minutes to execute the
warrant, and arrested defendant and other occupants of the apartment.
The undercover officer was not present during the search or arrest,
but went to the stationhouse later that evening and identified
defendant through a one-way mirror. This identification occurred less
than five hours after the officer had seen defendant in the apartment.
The People argue that the hearing court properly ruled that the
stationhouse identification was admissible as a confirmatory procedure
(see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921; see also, People v Morales, 37
NY2d 262). We agree. Although the People failed to establish that the
identification procedure was not suggestive, testimony presented at
the Wade hearing did establish that the officer's identification, only
hours after his second face-to-face transaction with defendant,
"constitute(d) the ordinary and proper completion of an integral
police procedure" (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d, at 922-923, supra).
Defendant's primary argument is that police identifications should not
be considered confirmatory unless they have been preceeded by a
"drive-by" to assure that the right individual has been taken into
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS ROBERTS A/K/A THOMAS ROBINSON, A/K/A
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Submitted by Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., for Appellant.
for Respondent.
An experienced undercover officer purchased a gram of cocaine from defendant inside a
The officer returned to the apartment one week after the first purchase and bought another
The backup team appeared at the apartment within five minutes to execute the warrant, and
The undercover officer was not present during the search or arrest, but went to the
The People argue that the hearing court properly ruled that the stationhouse identification
Although the People failed to establish that the identification procedure was not suggestive,
Courts should be especially vigilant to assure that any identifications that have not been
Although a drive-by is one way to assure reliability, it is not the only way.
That substantially reduced the risk that the wrong person would be taken into custody and the
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
|
