People v. Chann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chann

221 A.D.2d 155, 633 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10758

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 155 (People v. Chann) 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. Chann, 221 A.D.2d 155, 633 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1994, granting defendant’s suppression motion, unanimously affirmed, and the indictment is dismissed. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County for the purpose of entering an order in favor of the accused pursuant to CPL 160.50.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly granted. During a traffic stop, defendant made a hand motion as if to place an object in the back seat. This did not provide sufficient basis to search the vehicle (People v McCready, 121 AD2d 897, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 981). Nothing in defendant’s behavior prior to the stop, to wit, looking away and slumping down, suggested that he was armed (People v Concepcion, 216 AD2d 141). In any event, once the officers removed him from the vehicle, there was no immediate threat to their safety (People v Chapman, 211 AD2d 544, Iv denied 85 NY2d 970). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1994, granting defendant’s suppression motion, unanimously affirmed, and the indictment is dismissed. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County for the purpose of entering an order in favor of the accused pursuant to CPL 160.50.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly granted. During a traffic stop, defendant made a hand motion as if to place an object in the back seat. This did not provide sufficient basis to search the vehicle (People v McCready, 121 AD2d 897, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 981). Nothing in defendant’s behavior prior to the stop, to wit, looking away and slumping down, suggested that he was armed (People v Concepcion, 216 AD2d 141). In any event, once the officers removed him from the vehicle, there was no immediate threat to their safety (People v Chapman, 211 AD2d 544, Iv denied 85 NY2d 970). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 155, 633 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chann-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack