| People v Williams |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02237 [126 AD3d 1304] |
| March 20, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRobert L. Williams, Jr., Appellant. |
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller,A.J.), rendered September 10, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea ofguilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3]), defendant contends that the police improperly stopped the vehicle in which he was apassenger, and that Supreme Court therefore erred in refusing to suppress a handgunseized from the vehicle after the stop. We reject that contention. Here, an unidentifiedman called 911 and reported that, near a specific location, there were "[s]ome guys in awhite car and they look[ed] like they [were] about to fight and one of the guys pulled outa gun." Two police officers on routine patrol in the area had just left that location andhad observed a white vehicle parked on the wrong side of the road. Two men werestanding outside the vehicle, and a group of about 15 people were in the general vicinity.The police pulled over, and asked one of the two men standing closest to the vehicle tomove it because it was illegally parked. The two individuals entered the white vehicleand drove away. After the officers received the 911 dispatch, they located the whitevehicle a few blocks away. After following the vehicle for a short period of time, thepolice executed a traffic stop and removed the driver and defendant, the front seatpassenger. A subsequent search of the vehicle yielded a handgun underneath the frontpassenger seat.
We conclude that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based uponthe contents of the 911 call and the confirmatory observations of the police (see People v Argyris, 24 NY3d1138, 1140 [2014]; Peoplev Moss, 89 AD3d 1526, 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885[2012]; see also Navarette v California, 572 US &mdash, &mdash, 134 S Ct1683, 1692 [2014]). Here, unlike in Florida v J.L. (529 US 266 [2000]), "thereport of the 911 caller was based on the contemporaneous observation of conduct thatwas not concealed" (People vJeffery, 2 AD3d 1271, 1272 [2003]; see Navarette, 572 US at &mdash,134 S Ct at 1688-1689; Peoplev Argyris, 99 AD3d 808, 809 [2012], affd 24 NY3d 1138 [2014];People v Herold, 282 AD2d 1, 7 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 682 [2001]),and the caller's statements were corroborated in part by the observations of the police(see Jeffery, 2 AD3d at 1272; cf. J.L., 529 US at 270; People vWilliam II, 98 NY2d 93, 99 [2002]). Moreover, there are other "indicia of the 911caller's reliability" in this case (Navarette, 572 US at &mdash, 134 S Ct at 1692;see People v Rivera, 84AD3d 636, 636 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 904 [2011]). After reporting thepresence of a man with a gun, the caller told the 911 operator that he was "about to getoff the phone [be]cause [he] did[n't] want [any]body to know [he was] doing this," and "Ihave to hurry up and get out of here." Thus, the record reflects that the call was madecontemporaneously with the caller's observations and while he was still "under the stressof excitement" that such observations caused (Navarette, 572 US at &mdash, 134S Ct at 1689; see Rivera, 84 AD3d at 636). Present—Centra, J.P.,Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.