People v. Eades

269 A.D.2d 857, 703 N.Y.S.2d 803, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1815
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion because there was neither reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of his vehicle nor probable cause for its search. While police were investigating the theft of a van and tools from Rose City Glass in Canandaigua at around 12:30 a.m., other officers responding to the report of suspicious activity at Shepard Ford, a short distance away, found the van abandoned there. A witness at that location told police that a dark four-door 1988 Oldsmobile Delta had just left at a high rate of speed, traveling northbound on South Main Street. Minutes later the police stopped defendant driving a car matching that descrip[858]*858tion on North Main Street. The reasonable suspicion justifying the stop ripened into probable cause when the police saw the tools in plain view on the back seat and defendant gave the improbable explanation that he was on the way to a construction site. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Sir-kin, J. — Criminal Possession Stolen Property, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

People v. Eades, 269 A.D.2d 857, 703 N.Y.S.2d 803, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

269 A.D.2d 857 (People v. Eades) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Daily
2021 NY Slip Op 03327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Fleming
65 A.D.3d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. McCullough
270 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)