| People v Jackson |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06932 [88 AD3d 451] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Donsha Jackson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O., at suppressionhearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J., at suppression decision; Analisa Torres, J., at plea andsentencing), rendered March 25, 2010, as amended May 6, 2010, convicting defendant ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a secondfelony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. The police had awarrant, the validity of which is not at issue, to search apartment 12A of a residential building.As the police came out of the elevators on the 12th floor, they saw defendant, who was holdingkeys in his hand, suggesting that he was connected to one of the eight apartments on that floor.This provided the police with an objective, credible reason to ask defendant where he wascoming from (see generally People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185 [1992]). This simplequestion was a level-one request for information, and while the large number of officers presentmay have created a crowded condition in the hallway, this was not so intimidating as totransform the encounter into a common-law inquiry.
Defendant responded that he was coming from apartment 12A, the apartment that the officerswere about to search. This answer, along with defendant's possession of keys, created reasonablesuspicion that he was involved in the criminal activity that was the subject of the warrant. Thefact that the officers were about to execute a warrant provided additional justification fordetaining defendant for their safety and to ensure that he did not interfere with the search (seePeople v Allen, 73 NY2d 378, 379-380 [1989]; see also Michigan v Summers, 452US 692 [1981]).
The level of suspicion increased when defendant yelled that he had "changed [his] mind,"and that he had come from apartment 12C, not 12A. A woman later determined to be defendant'ssister then opened the door to apartment 12C, whereupon defendant immediately madestatements to her that evinced a consciousness of guilt. At the time defendant made thesestatements, he was still being lawfully detained. In this fast-paced incident, defendant wasdetained no longer than necessary. Accordingly, defendant's statements or directives to his sister[*2]were not subject to suppression.
Similarly, the police were entitled to use defendant's statements to his sister as one of thebases for obtaining a search warrant for apartment 12C. Defendant's remaining challenges to thatwarrant are without merit.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman,Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.