Matter of Reggie T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Reggie T.

120 A.D.3d 1145, 993 N.Y.S.2d 27

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2014

Docket13045

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1145 (Matter of Reggie T.) 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

Matter of Reggie T., 120 A.D.3d 1145, 993 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2013, which granted respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted respondent’s motion to suppress a weapon recovered from his person. The officer’s credited *1146 testimony failed to establish that he had the requisite suspicion to justify pursuing respondent, ordering him to stop and handcuffing him. The police received an anonymous tip that lacked a detailed description of the alleged criminal activity or its participants (see generally People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]). Respondent and his companions did not even match the limited descriptions of four alleged participants in a fight, and there was nothing to support an inference that they were likely to have been the same four persons described in the radio message, particularly since the events occurred on a busy street in the afternoon. Initially, there was nothing suspicious about the behavior of the four youths as the police arrived. Under all the circumstances, respondent’s ensuing flight was insufficient to elevate the minimal level of preexisting suspicion to a level warranting pursuit (see People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056 [1993]). The manner in which respondent held his arms while fleeing was also equivocal.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2013, which granted respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted respondent’s motion to suppress a weapon recovered from his person. The officer’s credited *1146 testimony failed to establish that he had the requisite suspicion to justify pursuing respondent, ordering him to stop and handcuffing him. The police received an anonymous tip that lacked a detailed description of the alleged criminal activity or its participants (see generally People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]). Respondent and his companions did not even match the limited descriptions of four alleged participants in a fight, and there was nothing to support an inference that they were likely to have been the same four persons described in the radio message, particularly since the events occurred on a busy street in the afternoon. Initially, there was nothing suspicious about the behavior of the four youths as the police arrived. Under all the circumstances, respondent’s ensuing flight was insufficient to elevate the minimal level of preexisting suspicion to a level warranting pursuit (see People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056 [1993]). The manner in which respondent held his arms while fleeing was also equivocal.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1145, 993 N.Y.S.2d 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-reggie-t-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack