People v. Clyde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clyde

203 A.D.2d 85, 611 N.Y.S.2d 1

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

DecidedApril 12, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 85 (People v. Clyde) 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. Clyde, 203 A.D.2d 85, 611 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard C. Failla, J.), entered February 20 and September 3, 1991, which, respectively, granted defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the hearing court’s determination that defendant’s observed actions, which consisted merely of looking around the Port Authority Bus Terminal as he prepared to board a bus, did not provide a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, so as to warrant the arresting officer’s acknowledged deliberate questioning of defendant intended to elicit an incriminating response (People v Boyd, 188 AD2d 239, lv withdrawn 81 NY2d 967). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard C. Failla, J.), entered February 20 and September 3, 1991, which, respectively, granted defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the hearing court’s determination that defendant’s observed actions, which consisted merely of looking around the Port Authority Bus Terminal as he prepared to board a bus, did not provide a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, so as to warrant the arresting officer’s acknowledged deliberate questioning of defendant intended to elicit an incriminating response (People v Boyd, 188 AD2d 239, lv withdrawn 81 NY2d 967). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 85, 611 N.Y.S.2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clyde-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack