People v. Jiminez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jiminez

2017 NY Slip Op 1152, 147 A.D.3d 496, 47 N.Y.S.3d 287

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2017

Docket3079 4689/11

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1152 (People v. Jiminez) 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. Jiminez, 2017 NY Slip Op 1152, 147 A.D.3d 496, 47 N.Y.S.3d 287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J., at hearing; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J., at jury trial *497 and sentencing), rendered May 3, 2013, convicting defendant of three counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. When defendant abandoned stolen credit and debit cards by discarding them on the street as a police officer approached him, the abandonment was not “precipitated by unlawful police activity” (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 110 [1996]). Regardless of the officer’s subjective intent, at the time defendant abandoned the cards, the police had not yet interfered with him in any way. The plainclothes officer’s actions, up to that point, were limited to crossing in front of defendant on the sidewalk from about 10 feet away and displaying his shield, without saying a word. In any event, based on defendant’s suspicious, unsuccessful efforts to use various cards to obtain money from a cash machine, the police had, at the least, a founded suspicion of criminality that entitled them to make a common-law inquiry (see People v Francois, 61 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 732 [2010]), and their conduct cannot be viewed as exceeding that authority (see People v Bora, 83 NY2d 531, 532-535 [1994]).

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J., at hearing; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J., at jury trial *497 and sentencing), rendered May 3, 2013, convicting defendant of three counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. When defendant abandoned stolen credit and debit cards by discarding them on the street as a police officer approached him, the abandonment was not “precipitated by unlawful police activity” (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 110 [1996]). Regardless of the officer’s subjective intent, at the time defendant abandoned the cards, the police had not yet interfered with him in any way. The plainclothes officer’s actions, up to that point, were limited to crossing in front of defendant on the sidewalk from about 10 feet away and displaying his shield, without saying a word. In any event, based on defendant’s suspicious, unsuccessful efforts to use various cards to obtain money from a cash machine, the police had, at the least, a founded suspicion of criminality that entitled them to make a common-law inquiry (see People v Francois, 61 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 732 [2010]), and their conduct cannot be viewed as exceeding that authority (see People v Bora, 83 NY2d 531, 532-535 [1994]).

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1152, 147 A.D.3d 496, 47 N.Y.S.3d 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jiminez-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack