People v. Dunbar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunbar

72 A.D.3d 566, 899 N.Y.S.2d 217

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

DecidedApril 27, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 566 (People v. Dunbar) 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. Dunbar, 72 A.D.3d 566, 899 N.Y.S.2d 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered July 16, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s actions and spontaneous statements to the police reasonably conveyed that he had been selling jewelry without a vendor’s license, and thus provided probable cause for his arrest, which did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see e.g. People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 595 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [567]*567[2008] ). Since the officer’s belief that defendant had an outstanding warrant was not the basis for the arrest, but only for the officer’s decision not to issue a summons, the People were not obligated to establish the validity of the warrant. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered July 16, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s actions and spontaneous statements to the police reasonably conveyed that he had been selling jewelry without a vendor’s license, and thus provided probable cause for his arrest, which did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see e.g. People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 595 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [567]*567[2008] ). Since the officer’s belief that defendant had an outstanding warrant was not the basis for the arrest, but only for the officer’s decision not to issue a summons, the People were not obligated to establish the validity of the warrant. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 566, 899 N.Y.S.2d 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunbar-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack