| People v Hampton |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08251 [44 AD3d 1071] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Walter Hampton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Peter A. Weinstein and Ilisa T.Fleischer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (La Pera, J.),rendered March 28, 2002, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, attemptedarson in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, pursuant to stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of physical evidence andstatements made to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon both their discovery of anapparently illegal handgun in a car from which the defendant's aunt Laverne Graham had justalighted (see People v Graham, 307 AD2d 935 [2003]), and Graham's statement to theeffect that the gun in question had recently been given to her by the defendant (see People vBerzups, 49 NY2d 417, 427 [1980]; People v Johnson, 7 AD3d 732 [2004]). Thelegality of the defendant's arrest was not diminished by the possibility that the police might havebeen less interested in prosecuting the defendant on the basis of the weapons offense than ininvestigating his possible involvement in Graham's recent attempt to murder the intended victimby setting fire to the intended victim's house (see People v Cypriano, 73 AD2d 902[1980]; see also People v Fulton, 257 AD2d 774 [1999]; People v Reynolds, 240AD2d 517 [1997]).[*2]
Additionally, the defendant's asserted belief that he wasunder arrest on suspicion of arson, rather than on the basis of the suspected weapons offense,would also have had no effect on the legality of the arrest (see Devenpeck v Alford, 543US 146 [2004]). "While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason forhis arrest at the time he is taken into custody, [this is not] constitutionally required"(Devenpeck v Alford, 543 US at 155; cf. CPL 140.15 [2]; People vCoffey, 12 NY2d 443, 453 [1963], cert denied 376 US 916 [1964]; People vSekoll, 254 AD2d 797 [1998]; People v Henry, 185 AD2d 1, 3 n [1992]; Peoplev Battest, 168 AD2d 958, 959 [1990]; People v Dyla, 142 AD2d 423, 428 [1988]).
The defendant's post-arrest statement, in which he confessed his involvement in Graham'splot to kill the intended victim by firebombing her house, was not, as he claims, "coerced"(e.g. People v Salaam, 83 NY2d 51 [1993]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Skelos andDickerson, JJ., concur.