| Matter of Freddy S. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04517 [84 AD3d 687] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Freddy S., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), forpresentment agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert R. Reed, J., at suppressionmotion; Nancy M. Bannon, J., at disposition), entered on or about February 5, 2010, whichadjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, ifcommitted by an adult, would constitute possession of an imitation firearm, and placed him onprobation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied appellant's suppression motion. There was probable cause forappellant's arrest, based on far more than an anonymous call. The police responded to a radio callstating that shots had just been fired by a described suspect in a park. When the police arrived atthe park immediately thereafter, they saw appellant, who met the description. The officersobserved that appellant's companions were warning him of the presence of police. At that point,appellant took a series of evasive actions in an obvious effort to hide from the officers, and thenfled as the officers approached. The police observations were sufficiently suggestive of thereported criminal activity to provide the requisite corroboration (see People v Elwell, 50NY2d 231, 234-235 [1980]).
The police lawfully searched appellant's backpack as incident to a lawful arrest (seePeople v Smith, 59 NY2d 454 [1983]; People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247 [1997], lvdenied 91 NY2d 946 [1998]; compare People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309 [1983]). Thearrest and search were contemporaneous, the police had information that appellant had just firedshots, the backpack remained in appellant's grabbable area, the backpack had not been reduced tothe exclusive [*2]control of the police, and the setting was acrowded park. Under all these circumstances, the police were clearly justified in inspecting thebackpack for their own safety and that of the public. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Acosta,Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.