People v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barrett

65 A.D.2d 578, 409 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13231

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 578 (People v. Barrett) 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. Barrett, 65 A.D.2d 578, 409 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 16, 1978, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress a pistol found on his person and statements made by him after his arrest. Order reversed, on the law and the [579]*579facts, and motion to suppress denied. In our opinion, there was a proper predicate for Detective Drum’s "pat-down” of defendant (see CPL 140.50, subd 3; People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; People v Green, 35 NY2d 193). The subsequent arrest of defendant for possession of a firearm was proper. Since the arrest was lawful, the statements made by defendant after the administration of the Miranda warnings are admissible. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 16, 1978, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress a pistol found on his person and statements made by him after his arrest. Order reversed, on the law and the [579]*579facts, and motion to suppress denied. In our opinion, there was a proper predicate for Detective Drum’s "pat-down” of defendant (see CPL 140.50, subd 3; People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; People v Green, 35 NY2d 193). The subsequent arrest of defendant for possession of a firearm was proper. Since the arrest was lawful, the statements made by defendant after the administration of the Miranda warnings are admissible. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 578, 409 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barrett-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack