People v. Balanco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Balanco

158 A.D.2d 367, 551 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1388

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 367 (People v. Balanco) 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

People v. Balanco, 158 A.D.2d 367, 551 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Two officers were driving south on Ludlow Street in lower [368]*368Manhattan, in a marked police van, at about 1:00 a.m., when they saw the defendant-respondent standing in front of a restaurant in a known drug area.

When the defendant saw the van, he adjusted the waistband of his trousers, but was not pulling them up. The police pulled up next to defendant and one of the officers asked him what he was doing there. The defendant shook his head and replied "No habla English, no habla English”. The officer repeated the question several times until defendant again said "No habla English” and threw his hands up. In the process, his jacket opened and the police officers saw the butt of a gun. One of them left the van, patted the defendant down and removed the gun which is the subject of the motion to suppress.

The hearing court found the police officer credible and forthright and accepted his testimony. However, the physical evidence was suppressed on the ground that there was "no objective credible reason” for questioning the defendant or a "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.”

As discussed in People v La Pene ([decided together with People v De Bour], 40 NY2d 210, 223), "[t]he minimal intrusion of approaching to request information is permissible when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality (People v De Bour, supra).” Where, as here, a police officer observed a person standing in a drug-prone area at 1:00 a.m. who, upon seeing a marked police van, adjusted the waistband of his trousers, the initial questioning of defendant met this standard. Thereafter, there can be no dispute that once the police saw the butt of a gun, the subsequent pat down and seizure were proper. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Two officers were driving south on Ludlow Street in lower [368]*368Manhattan, in a marked police van, at about 1:00 a.m., when they saw the defendant-respondent standing in front of a restaurant in a known drug area.

When the defendant saw the van, he adjusted the waistband of his trousers, but was not pulling them up. The police pulled up next to defendant and one of the officers asked him what he was doing there. The defendant shook his head and replied "No habla English, no habla English”. The officer repeated the question several times until defendant again said "No habla English” and threw his hands up. In the process, his jacket opened and the police officers saw the butt of a gun. One of them left the van, patted the defendant down and removed the gun which is the subject of the motion to suppress.

The hearing court found the police officer credible and forthright and accepted his testimony. However, the physical evidence was suppressed on the ground that there was "no objective credible reason” for questioning the defendant or a "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.”

As discussed in People v La Pene ([decided together with People v De Bour], 40 NY2d 210, 223), "[t]he minimal intrusion of approaching to request information is permissible when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality (People v De Bour, supra).” Where, as here, a police officer observed a person standing in a drug-prone area at 1:00 a.m. who, upon seeing a marked police van, adjusted the waistband of his trousers, the initial questioning of defendant met this standard. Thereafter, there can be no dispute that once the police saw the butt of a gun, the subsequent pat down and seizure were proper. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 367, 551 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-balanco-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack