People v. Blunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blunt

162 A.D.2d 544

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

DecidedJune 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 544 (People v. Blunt) 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. Blunt, 162 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered December 16, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s finding that a valid predicate existed for the police to stop the defendant and ask for his identification (CPL 140.50 [1]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). Once the defendant voluntarily identified himself as Herman Blunt, the police had probable cause to arrest him, since Blunt had been previously identified by a named citizen as having committed a burglary (see, People v Inman, 80 AD2d 622). Kunzeman, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered December 16, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s finding that a valid predicate existed for the police to stop the defendant and ask for his identification (CPL 140.50 [1]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). Once the defendant voluntarily identified himself as Herman Blunt, the police had probable cause to arrest him, since Blunt had been previously identified by a named citizen as having committed a burglary (see, People v Inman, 80 AD2d 622). Kunzeman, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blunt-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack