People v. Gaines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gaines

207 A.D.2d 952, 617 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10108

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 952 (People v. Gaines) 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. Gaines, 207 A.D.2d 952, 617 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention that County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Within an hour of the robbery, the police interviewed the victim, who described one of the robbers as a thin, black male wearing a gold suit. Within minutes of the interview, an officer observed defendant, who matched the description given by the victim, in the vicinity of the robbery. [953]*953When that officer approached defendant, he fled. During the chase, the pursuing officer lost sight of defendant at the back of a house. When the officer reached the front of that house, people were running from it, screaming that there was a strange man inside. The residents of the house directed the police to the basement. The police seized defendant, who was hiding under a sheet.

The officer’s observations, when coupled with defendant’s immediate flight upon being approached, established the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify the police pursuit of defendant (see, People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 929-930; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736). Moreover, defendant’s subsequent actions were not precipitated by any illegal police conduct. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.— Criminal Trespass, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention that County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Within an hour of the robbery, the police interviewed the victim, who described one of the robbers as a thin, black male wearing a gold suit. Within minutes of the interview, an officer observed defendant, who matched the description given by the victim, in the vicinity of the robbery. [953]*953When that officer approached defendant, he fled. During the chase, the pursuing officer lost sight of defendant at the back of a house. When the officer reached the front of that house, people were running from it, screaming that there was a strange man inside. The residents of the house directed the police to the basement. The police seized defendant, who was hiding under a sheet.

The officer’s observations, when coupled with defendant’s immediate flight upon being approached, established the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify the police pursuit of defendant (see, People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 929-930; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736). Moreover, defendant’s subsequent actions were not precipitated by any illegal police conduct. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.— Criminal Trespass, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 952, 617 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gaines-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack