In re Chaz J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Chaz J.

106 A.D.3d 425, 963 N.Y.S.2d 870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 425 (In re Chaz J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Chaz J., 106 A.D.3d 425, 963 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruben A. Martino, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act constituting possession of a box cutter in a public place by a person under 21 in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-134.1 (e), and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police saw appellant and three associates encircling a food delivery worker in an area where there had been a pattern of robberies of such workers. This provided, at least, an objective credible reason to approach appellant’s group and request information (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). The police conduct in requesting that the group “hold up a second” in order to question them did not elevate the encounter to that of a seizure or a common-law inquiry (see e.g. People v Bora, 83 NY2d 531, 534-535 [1994]; People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945 [1994]).

One of appellant’s associates then threw a knife into nearby [426]*426bushes. When coupled with the prior “encircling” behavior, this fact gave the police, at least, a founded suspicion that appellant and the others may have been engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. Since the officers had a founded suspicion of criminality, they were justified in conducting a common-law inquiry by asking appellant and his associates whether they were in possession of any weapons (see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d 317 [2012]). Appellant’s response led to the lawful recovery of a box cutter. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruben A. Martino, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act constituting possession of a box cutter in a public place by a person under 21 in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-134.1 (e), and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police saw appellant and three associates encircling a food delivery worker in an area where there had been a pattern of robberies of such workers. This provided, at least, an objective credible reason to approach appellant’s group and request information (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). The police conduct in requesting that the group “hold up a second” in order to question them did not elevate the encounter to that of a seizure or a common-law inquiry (see e.g. People v Bora, 83 NY2d 531, 534-535 [1994]; People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945 [1994]).

One of appellant’s associates then threw a knife into nearby [426]*426bushes. When coupled with the prior “encircling” behavior, this fact gave the police, at least, a founded suspicion that appellant and the others may have been engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. Since the officers had a founded suspicion of criminality, they were justified in conducting a common-law inquiry by asking appellant and his associates whether they were in possession of any weapons (see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d 317 [2012]). Appellant’s response led to the lawful recovery of a box cutter. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 425, 963 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chaz-j-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack