People v Singleton

[*1] People v Singleton 2005 NY Slip Op 50141(U) Decided on January 7, 2005 Monroe County Ct Connell, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 7, 2005
Monroe County Ct

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

against

DAVID SINGLETON



2004-0603



ROBERT MARANGOLA, ESQ.

Assistant District Attorney

for the People

ANNE BURGER, ESQ.

Assistant Public Defender

for the Defendant

John J. Connell, J.

The following constitutes the Opinion, Decision & Order of the Court.

The defendant, claiming that improper identification testimony may be offered against him, has moved to exclude the identification testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Patel on the ground that it would not be admissible because of an improperly made prior identification of the defendant by the prospective witnesses.

The People have the burden of going forward to show that the pre-trial identification procedure was not constitutionally impermissible. The defendant, however, bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the procedure was impermissible.

The defendant, claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, has also moved to suppress physical evidence seized by members of the Rochester Police Department on June 25, 2004. A pre-trial suppression hearing was conducted before me on these issues on November 19, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On June 25, 2004 at approximately 6:40 p.m. Investigator Kirk Pero of the Rochester Police Department responded to the 490 Motel at 360 Mt. Read Boulevard in the City of Rochester for a call of two black males kicking in the door. He and Sergeant Peters of the Rochester Police Department arrived at the location within a minute of the dispatch. As he arrived, Investigator Pero saw the defendant, a black male, run out of the office area of the motel towards a car. Without putting on a seat belt, the defendant quickly put the car in reverse as a white female ran out of the office area pointing at the defendant. No other black males were in the area that time.

Both officers drew their guns and ordered the defendant to stop the car and get out. He complied and was handcuffed and turned over to Officer Dickerson. Other police officers arrived at that time and observed damage to the door between the motel office room and the apartment adjoining the office. An Indian male and female came running out of the office area with duct tape binding their wrists. They told police that they had been robbed of money from the cash register by three people.

The two victims were Mr. and Mrs. Patel. They were separated during show- up [*2]identification procedures. The first took place at 6:58 p.m. in the parking lot of the motel. The defendant, handcuffed and standing next to a police officer, stood approximately 40 feet away from Mr. Patel, who was viewing him with Investigator Pero. Investigator Pero told Mr. Patel that the person who robbed him may or may not be there, and that if he recognized anyone he should tell the investigator that and from where he recognized him. The same procedure was followed with Mrs. Patel at 7:01 p.m. Both individuals identified the defendant as being one of the robbers. The defendant was thereafter brought to the Public Safety Building.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the police dispatch, the observations the officers made as they arrived at the motel parking lot, and the actions of the woman pointing out the defendant as he quickly was attempting to leave the area, the seizure of the defendant constituted a valid, investigative detention that was supported by reasonable suspicion (People v Rogue, 99NY 2D 50) .

The show-up identification procedures were properly conducted by the police since they were close in time and proximity to the robbery that was being investigated. Accordingly, the defendant's motions to suppress the in-court identifications of Mr. and Mrs. Patel, and any evidence flowing from the detention of the defendant, is in all respects denied.

Signed this 7th day of January, 2005 at Rochester, New York.

JOHN J. CONNELL

County Court Judge