People v. Gonzalez

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Gonzalez

692 N.E.2d 557, 91 N.Y.2d 909, 669 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 13

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by51 cases

This text of 692 N.E.2d 557 (People v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gonzalez, 692 N.E.2d 557, 91 N.Y.2d 909, 669 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 13 (N.Y. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the motion to suppress denied.

The record in this case permits only the following inferences to be drawn from the unrefuted, unchallenged and fully credited testimony of the sole witness at the suppression hearing: that the officers who initially stopped defendant were part of the arresting detective’s "buy and bust” team and heard the reports transmitted by their fellow officers over the radio (see, People v Mims [decided under the lead heading of People v Ramirez], 88 NY2d 99, 113-114); that the officers who initially stopped defendant at least had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for a confirmatory identification; and that the detective who ultimately arrested defendant, and who searched defendant only after a confirmatory identification, had probable cause to make the arrest.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach the People’s remaining argument.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order re[911]*911versed and defendant’s motion to suppress denied in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the motion to suppress denied.

The record in this case permits only the following inferences to be drawn from the unrefuted, unchallenged and fully credited testimony of the sole witness at the suppression hearing: that the officers who initially stopped defendant were part of the arresting detective’s "buy and bust” team and heard the reports transmitted by their fellow officers over the radio (see, People v Mims [decided under the lead heading of People v Ramirez], 88 NY2d 99, 113-114); that the officers who initially stopped defendant at least had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for a confirmatory identification; and that the detective who ultimately arrested defendant, and who searched defendant only after a confirmatory identification, had probable cause to make the arrest.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach the People’s remaining argument.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order re[911]*911versed and defendant’s motion to suppress denied in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 N.E.2d 557, 91 N.Y.2d 909, 669 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzalez-ny-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack