| People v Hillard |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09737 [79 AD3d 1757] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AntonioHillard, Also Known as Antonio Hilliard, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Elizabeth Clifford of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), renderedAugust 30, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possessionof a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]),criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (§ 220.09 [1]) andunlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05). Defendant contends that the police lackedthe requisite reasonable suspicion to pursue him because the pursuit was improperly based oninformation from an anonymous source. We reject that contention. It is well settled that " '[a]nidentified citizen informant is presumed to be reliable' " (People v Van Every, 1 AD3d 977, 978 [2003], lv denied 1NY3d 602 [2004]). In this case, the 911 caller who reported that two males were selling drugs ata specified location gave the police his first name, his telephone number, and the address fromwhich he was calling. "Because the caller identified himself by [his first] name and providedinformation about his location, the call was not a truly anonymous one, and the police werejustified in acting on such information" (People v Dixon, 289 AD2d 937, 937-938[2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]; see Van Every, 1 AD3d at 978). Whendefendant fled from a responding officer and the officer observed that defendant matched thedescription given by the 911 caller, the officer "had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant,[and] defendant's [ensuing] abandonment . . . of a [jacket] containing drugs was notprecipitated by illegal police conduct" (People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 930 [1994]).Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the testimony of a police officer concerning thegeographic area where he was arrested did not constitute Molineux evidence because itdid not implicate him in the commission of any crimes, and thus there is no need to determinewhether such testimony falls within a Molineux exception (see generally People v Arafet, 13NY3d 460, 465 [2009]). Present—Centra, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Green and Gorski,JJ.