| People v Johnson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06731 [99 AD3d 472] |
| October 9, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ToddJohnson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Frank Glaser of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J., at hearing; Charles H.Solomon, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 21, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his pleaof guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencinghim, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's arrest for disorderly conduct complied with CPL 140.10 (1) (a), which providesthat a police officer may arrest a person for an offense when "he or she has reasonable cause tobelieve that such person has committed such offense in his or her presence." The arresting officerheard another officer make a statement indicating that defendant and three other men had beentold "to get off the corner" where they were congregating in front of a local store. The officerhimself made a statement indicating that the men should leave the corner. None of the men,including defendant, left and the officer arrested all four of the men for disorderly conduct.
Penal Law § 240.20 (6) provides that "[a] person is guilty of disorderly conduct when,with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a riskthereof: . . . He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses tocomply with a lawful order of the police to disperse." Given the information the officer had aboutthe gang problems that had occurred at that location in the past and the gang background ofseveral of the men, he had a reasonable basis to believe their presence could cause publicinconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Defendant's failure to obey the police officer's directionprovided probable cause to arrest him (see generally People v McDermott, 279 AD2d361 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 803 [2001]; Matter of James T., 189 AD2d 580[1993]).
Because the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant, the hearing courtproperly declined to suppress the narcotics evidence recovered at the precinct incident to thelawful arrest. In light of our conclusion that the arresting officer had probable cause based on hisown observations, we need not address the People's argument that he could rely on the fellowofficer rule in making this violation arrest. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick,DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.