| People v Pitman |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00429 [102 AD3d 595] |
| January 29, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dwight Pitman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi-Levi of counsel),for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J., at suppressionhearing; Bruce Allen, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 2, 2011, as amended June23, 2011, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a pistol he discarded whilefleeing from the police. Defendant's flight, coupled with circumstances providing afounded suspicion of criminality, warranted police pursuit (see e.g. People vPines, 281 AD2d 311 [1st Dept 2001], affd 99 NY2d 525 [2002]).
Late at night, the police received a radio report that three men had committed arobbery and fled into a particular park. The description of the robbers was limited to theirrace, gender and number. The officers were familiar with a pattern of activity wherebycriminals would evade the police by crossing this park and emerging on its other side.The officers went to the other side of the park and saw defendant and two other men,who met this limited description, at a location that was consistent with their having justcrossed the park and emerged on its other side. There was no one else on the street at thattime. Accordingly, despite the limitations of the description, the officers had a foundedsuspicion that these men might be the three robbers (see People v Montilla, 268AD2d 270 [1st Dept 2000], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 830 [2000]).
When the officers turned their car around and began to get out of the car to approachthe three men, defendant fled, while holding his hand in his pocket. These circumstanceselevated the level of suspicion to reasonable suspicion of criminality and justifiedpursuit. Although the officers were in plainclothes in an unmarked car, the circumstancespermitted the officers to reasonably infer that defendant fled because he realized he wasin the presence of the police. We have repeatedly observed that the circumstances of acase may indicate that a suspect recognized [*2]thepolice, even where the officers were neither in uniform nor in a marked car (see People v Collado, 72AD3d 614 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 850 [2010], and cases citedtherein). Moreover, there was testimony that the unmarked Chevy Impala "stand[s] out asthe usual unmarked police vehicle." Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Richterand Gische, JJ.