People v. Tinort
709 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632, 272 A.D.2d 206 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer has probable cause to arrest an individual for criminal trespass when that person is found in a building with a 'trespass affidavit' on file and provides evasive and demonstrably false answers to an officer's questions about their presence. Probable cause for arrest does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime, including the suspect's mental state (scienter).
Facts:
- The owner of a building known for drug activity had previously executed a 'trespass affidavit,' requesting police assistance in removing intruders.
- A police officer, who had made prior arrests in the building, observed defendant Ocasio inside.
- The officer approached Ocasio and asked if he lived in the building.
- Ocasio stated he was visiting a friend.
- When the officer asked for the friend's name, Ocasio claimed not to know it.
- Ocasio then provided an apartment number that the officer knew was non-existent.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Supreme Court of New York County (the trial court), defendant Ocasio filed a motion to suppress evidence.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion.
- Following the denial, Ocasio pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Ocasio.
- Ocasio (as appellant) appealed the judgment, challenging the denial of his suppression motion, to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer have probable cause to arrest an individual for criminal trespass when the individual is found in a building known for drug activity with a 'trespass affidavit' on file and provides answers to the officer's questions that are evasive and verifiably false?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum Opinion (per curiam)
Yes. An officer has probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass under these circumstances. The court found that the officer's initial approach and question to Ocasio constituted a permissible level one request for information, justified by an 'objective credible reason'—Ocasio's presence in a drug-prone building whose owner had requested police assistance in removing trespassers. When Ocasio provided answers that were not only suspicious but also demonstrably false (claiming to visit an unnamed friend in a non-existent apartment), the officer's suspicion escalated to probable cause to believe Ocasio was committing criminal trespass. The court explicitly stated that probable cause does not require the officer to have proof of every element of the offense, such as scienter (criminal intent), beyond a reasonable doubt at the time of the arrest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the application of New York's tiered framework for police-citizen encounters, illustrating how an encounter can lawfully escalate from a simple request for information to a probable cause arrest. It clarifies that probable cause for a criminal trespass arrest can be established through a combination of location (a building with a trespass notice) and a suspect's evasive and false statements. Significantly, the ruling lowers the evidentiary bar for officers at the point of arrest, confirming they do not need to prove the suspect's subjective intent to establish probable cause, which gives officers more latitude in high-crime areas with trespass affidavits.
