Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Quintana, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-12-18
Citations: 245 A.D.2d 190
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Quintana, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Quintana, Appellant.
[666 NYS2d 589]

Opinion:
—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered February 24, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motions were properly denied. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that the complainant and eyewitnesses in the crowd provided the sending officer a sufficiently detailed description of the incident, the robbers, and their escape route. The evidence further established that immediately after receiving the sending officer's radioed description, a group of police officers kept in constant radio communication updating each other on the robbers' location (see, People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99, 113) as they actively pursued them with the aid of civilians who had witnessed their movements. Based on the initial radio transmission, the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was armed and had committed a crime. They were thus permitted, as they did, to forcibly detain him pending a showup by the complainant. Once the complainant identified defendant, the police had probable cause to arrest him (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). The showup and photographic identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.