People v. Little

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Little

121 A.D.3d 487, 993 N.Y.S.2d 503

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2014

Docket1140/11

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 487 (People v. Little) 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. Little, 121 A.D.3d 487, 993 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J., at suppression hearing; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered November 17, 2011, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Police officers heard women screaming from inside an apartment in an area where a series of burglaries and robberies had taken place. They found the door to the building unlocked and defendant standing in the vestibule with a companion, with the women pointing at them and continuing to scream. Defendant gave a false explanation for his presence, and effectively admitted that he was at least a trespasser. The circumstances facing the officers, with particular reference to the women’s demeanor (see e.g. People v Hicks, 279 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 801 [2001]), provided them with reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, or was about to commit, a burglary or robbery. This justified an immediate protective frisk for weapons (see People v Mack, 26 NY2d 311 [1970], cert denied 400 US 960 [1970]). The police lawfully recovered drugs in the *488 course of the protective frisk.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische 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 (Juan M. Merchan, J., at suppression hearing; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered November 17, 2011, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Police officers heard women screaming from inside an apartment in an area where a series of burglaries and robberies had taken place. They found the door to the building unlocked and defendant standing in the vestibule with a companion, with the women pointing at them and continuing to scream. Defendant gave a false explanation for his presence, and effectively admitted that he was at least a trespasser. The circumstances facing the officers, with particular reference to the women’s demeanor (see e.g. People v Hicks, 279 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 801 [2001]), provided them with reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, or was about to commit, a burglary or robbery. This justified an immediate protective frisk for weapons (see People v Mack, 26 NY2d 311 [1970], cert denied 400 US 960 [1970]). The police lawfully recovered drugs in the *488 course of the protective frisk.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 487, 993 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-little-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack