People v. Hampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hampton

197 A.D.2d 365, 602 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9005

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 365 (People v. Hampton) 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. Hampton, 197 A.D.2d 365, 602 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered September 25, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to a definite term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Based on a livery cab driver’s frantic hand signals pointing toward his passengers, the police had a right to question the passengers (see, People v Charriz, 186 AD2d 495, lv denied 81 NY2d 761). High beams from a cab driver is not the only signal of criminal activity justifying a stop and inquiry. Moreover, the hysterical behavior of the driver who spoke in a foreign language and the furtive and evasive conduct of the defendant afforded a reasonable suspicion that the defendant [366]*366was armed. Hence, the protective search for a weapon and the recovery of a .357 magnum with hollow point rounds by unzipping defendant’s jacket was permissible (see, People v Robinson, 125 AD2d 259, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 1014).

Accordingly, the motion to suppress was properly denied. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered September 25, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to a definite term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Based on a livery cab driver’s frantic hand signals pointing toward his passengers, the police had a right to question the passengers (see, People v Charriz, 186 AD2d 495, lv denied 81 NY2d 761). High beams from a cab driver is not the only signal of criminal activity justifying a stop and inquiry. Moreover, the hysterical behavior of the driver who spoke in a foreign language and the furtive and evasive conduct of the defendant afforded a reasonable suspicion that the defendant [366]*366was armed. Hence, the protective search for a weapon and the recovery of a .357 magnum with hollow point rounds by unzipping defendant’s jacket was permissible (see, People v Robinson, 125 AD2d 259, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 1014).

Accordingly, the motion to suppress was properly denied. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 365, 602 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hampton-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack