From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1998
256 A.D.2d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 10, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.).


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause to arrest defendant and his companion was provided by the totality of the observations of an officer highly experienced in automobile-related larcenies. These observations, including distinctive "casing"-type behavior (involving crossing back and forth across the street for that purpose), "lookout"-type behavior, entry into a car and opening of its trunk in a suspicious manner, and immediate removal of property, when viewed as a whole, were inconsistent with lawful behavior ( see, People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1998
256 A.D.2d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Romano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VICTOR ROMANO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 10, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 157

Citing Cases

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

Observations of the sort made personally by Officer Benge have been held in prior cases to establish probable…

People v. Keita

To be sure, probable cause requires only that the arresting officer be aware that some crime may have…