People v Sturdivant
Annotate this CaseDecided on February 17, 2022
City Court of Mount Vernon
The People of the State of New York,
against
Alfred D. Jr. Sturdivant, Defendant.
Docket No. CR-02278-20
Westchester County District Attorney
Mount Vernon branch
Alvin Thomas, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
10 Fiske Place, Suite 417
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
Nichelle A. Johnson, J.
A Dunaway/Huntley hearing was held in this matter where defendant is charged with one count of Resisting Arrest (PL § 205.30), one count of Obstructing Governmental Administration (PL § 195.05) and Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (PL § 145.00). After receiving testimony the Court finds as follows:
Findings of Fact:
At the hearing, Sgt. George Vargas of the Mount Vernon Police Department testified that on March 30, 2020 at approximately 10:00 a.m. he was on routine patrol in a marked vehicle when he received a report of an individual shoplifting in the vicinity of 16 East Third Street, Mount Vernon. Upon arriving at the location, Sgt. Vargas observed Lt. Quinoy's police vehicle parked at the location. Sgt. Vargas observed other officers on the scene and then saw the defendant walk out of the store at the location with a bag containing what looked like chips or bags of peanuts. As he approached the address and other officers at the scene he observed the defendant race over to Lt. Quinoy's police vehicle, reach inside of it and rip out the microphone cord from the lieutenant's police vehicle radio. Sgt. Vargas attempted to place the defendant under arrest. Sgt. Vargas advised the defendant that he was under arrest and directed the [*2]defendant to place his hands behind his back several times but defendant refused to comply. Sgt. Vargas and a few other officers who were at the scene physically restrained the defendant and forced him to the ground. Defendant continued to resist by clenching his arms in front of his body and refused to put his arms behind his back. To finally get defendant to comply, one of the other officers had to tase the defendant. Sgt. Vargas testified that the defendant kept saying in sum and substance "not today, not today, not today" during his arrest. PO Riley, one of the officers on the scene, was wearing a body cam. Additionally, there was video surveillance obtained from the store at the location. The videos from PO Riley's body cam as well as the surveillance video were entered into evidence as People's 3a, 3b, 3c and 4. The videos depict the circumstances of the defendant's arrest as testified to by Sgt. Vargas. Sgt. Vargas further testified that since the defendant had been tased, protocol required that he be brought to the hospital. Sgt. Vargas testified that PO Benjamin accompanied the defendant to the hospital in the ambulance. Sgt. Vargas testified that he did not know about any statements that the defendant may have made at the hospital. Sgt. Vargas testified that he learned after the incident that the defendant was the individual suspected of the shoplifting but that he was placing him under arrest because of what he observed the defendant do.
Conclusions of Law:
The Court finds the testimony given at the hearing by Sgt. Vargas to be credible. Based on the credible testimony received at the hearing, the Court finds that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant. Sgt. Vargas testified that he observed the defendant rip the wires out from the radio in the police vehicle. As such, Sgt. Vargas had the requisite probable cause to place the defendant under arrest for criminal mischief.
The remaining issue before this Court relates to the defendant's alleged statements made, as per the misdemeanor information, when he was in the Mount Vernon Hospital Emergency Room after having been placed under arrest. It is alleged that defendant stated in sum and substance that he did not recall anything that had happened because he was under the influence of drugs. At a Huntley hearing, the burden is on the prosecution to first establish the legality of the police conduct and to prove that the alleged statements were made voluntarily beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Whitehurst, 25 NY2d 389 (1960); People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965); see People v Velasquez, 2019 NYLJ 2029 (Crim Ct Bronx Cty 2019). Any statement made during a custodial interrogation by the defendant without being informed of his constitutional rights must be suppressed. In the case at bar, the People failed to elicit any testimony about the above referenced statements. Sgt. Vargas testified that he had no knowledge of any statements allegedly made by the defendant at the hospital. As such, there was no testimony that the defendant actually made the statements as alleged in the accusatory instrument let alone testimony regarding the precise circumstances during which these alleged statements were made. As such, since the People did not meet their burden of production, the statements allegedly made by the defendant for which the People served CPL § 710.30(1)(a) notice are precluded from use at trial. See People v Troy (Sup Ct Bronx Cty 2010); People v Velasquez, supra.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: February 17, 2022
Mount Vernon, New York
____________________________________
HON. NICHELLE A. JOHNSON
City Judge of Mount Vernon
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
