In re Eugene J.

New York Court of Appeals

In re Eugene J.

369 N.E.2d 764, 42 N.Y.2d 1058, 399 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2397

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 369 N.E.2d 764 (In re Eugene J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Eugene J., 369 N.E.2d 764, 42 N.Y.2d 1058, 399 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2397 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order affirmed, without costs. Appellant’s furtive movements behind an unoccupied automobile adjacent to farm fields justified limited police inquiry, including the request for identification, even though up to that point there might not have been probable cause for a search or arrest (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 216-218, 220; cf. People v Morales, 42 NY2d 129, 135). It is true that the limited inquiry led defendant to produce two knives as he emptied his pockets in compliance with a police demand for identification, but disgorging of the knives did not make the inquiry a "search”. Once the police saw the knives and associated defendant with [1060]*1060a warrant poster describing a suspected rapist, there was, of course, ample cause to hold defendant for custodial interrogation.

Appellant’s other contention, that his waiver of rights during custodial interrogation was not knowing and voluntary, is foreclosed by the findings of fact below, findings supported by the evidence.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. Order affirmed, without costs. Appellant’s furtive movements behind an unoccupied automobile adjacent to farm fields justified limited police inquiry, including the request for identification, even though up to that point there might not have been probable cause for a search or arrest (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 216-218, 220; cf. People v Morales, 42 NY2d 129, 135). It is true that the limited inquiry led defendant to produce two knives as he emptied his pockets in compliance with a police demand for identification, but disgorging of the knives did not make the inquiry a "search”. Once the police saw the knives and associated defendant with [1060]*1060a warrant poster describing a suspected rapist, there was, of course, ample cause to hold defendant for custodial interrogation.

Appellant’s other contention, that his waiver of rights during custodial interrogation was not knowing and voluntary, is foreclosed by the findings of fact below, findings supported by the evidence.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 N.E.2d 764, 42 N.Y.2d 1058, 399 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eugene-j-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack