People v. Caballero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caballero

207 A.D.2d 706, 616 N.Y.S.2d 593

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 706 (People v. Caballero) 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. Caballero, 207 A.D.2d 706, 616 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1993, denying the People’s motion to reargue an order, same court and Justice, which granted defendant’s suppression motion, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the suppression court that reasonable suspicion to forcibly stop defendant was not provided by the anonymous tip of drug selling activities and the fact that defendant [707]*707and his companions walked away when they saw the officer approach them from a block away, and that the seizure cannot be deemed merely an attempt to initiate a common-law inquiry because the officer said "excuse me” just before grabbing defendant’s shoulder. The officer, who had no reason to believe that defendant was armed and did not himself observe defendant engage in any criminal activity, never identified himself to defendant or otherwise indicated that he wanted to talk to him before grabbing him.

We have considered all other issues and find them to be meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1993, denying the People’s motion to reargue an order, same court and Justice, which granted defendant’s suppression motion, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the suppression court that reasonable suspicion to forcibly stop defendant was not provided by the anonymous tip of drug selling activities and the fact that defendant [707]*707and his companions walked away when they saw the officer approach them from a block away, and that the seizure cannot be deemed merely an attempt to initiate a common-law inquiry because the officer said "excuse me” just before grabbing defendant’s shoulder. The officer, who had no reason to believe that defendant was armed and did not himself observe defendant engage in any criminal activity, never identified himself to defendant or otherwise indicated that he wanted to talk to him before grabbing him.

We have considered all other issues and find them to be meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 706, 616 N.Y.S.2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caballero-nyappdiv-1994.