People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holmes

52 A.D.2d 629, 382 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12266

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

DecidedApril 19, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 629 (People v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 52 A.D.2d 629, 382 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 29, 1975 (date on clerk’s extract July 15, 1975), convicting him of attempted possession of a weapon, etc., as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review a decision of the same court, made December 6, 1974, which, after a hearing, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, motion granted, and indictment dismissed (see People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413). We find no merit in respondent’s contention that the decision in People v Ingle (supra) should be applied prospectively only, as we do not read that case as announcing any new principles of constitutional law. Instead, Ingle merely applied the dictates of Terry v Ohio (392 US 1) to routine traffic stops. Such stops are still permitted if based upon uniform procedures or a minimal degree of suspicion of a vehicle violation. All that is interdicted is a stop which is "gratuitous, arbitrary, and without justification or excuse” [630]*630(People v Ingle, supra, p 418; see People v Martinez, 37 NY2d 662; People v Murray, 48 AD2d 907; cf. People v Simone, 48 AD2d 497). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 29, 1975 (date on clerk’s extract July 15, 1975), convicting him of attempted possession of a weapon, etc., as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review a decision of the same court, made December 6, 1974, which, after a hearing, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, motion granted, and indictment dismissed (see People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413). We find no merit in respondent’s contention that the decision in People v Ingle (supra) should be applied prospectively only, as we do not read that case as announcing any new principles of constitutional law. Instead, Ingle merely applied the dictates of Terry v Ohio (392 US 1) to routine traffic stops. Such stops are still permitted if based upon uniform procedures or a minimal degree of suspicion of a vehicle violation. All that is interdicted is a stop which is "gratuitous, arbitrary, and without justification or excuse” [630]*630(People v Ingle, supra, p 418; see People v Martinez, 37 NY2d 662; People v Murray, 48 AD2d 907; cf. People v Simone, 48 AD2d 497). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 629, 382 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holmes-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack