People v. Nesmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nesmith

289 A.D.2d 1049, 735 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1049 (People v. Nesmith) 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. Nesmith, 289 A.D.2d 1049, 735 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress physical evidence seized as the result of his pursuit and seizure by the police. The police officer who initiated the pursuit received a radio dispatch of a burglary in progress, observed defendant carrying a VCR in a pillowcase and a bag containing compact discs, and noticed that defendant matched the description of the suspect in a burglary in the vicinity three days earlier. That information provided the officer with at least a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and gave rise to a common law right of inquiry (see, People v Pines, 281 AD2d 311, 312, lv granted 96 NY2d 923; People v Turner, 275 AD2d 924, lv denied 95 NY2d 939; see generally, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184-185). The flight of defendant, combined with those other specific circumstances indicative of criminality on his part, gave rise to reasonable suspicion justifying the officer’s pursuit of defendant (see, People v Turner, supra; People v Muldrow, 222 AD2d 1076, lv denied 88 NY2d 882; see generally, People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1057-1058). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Kehoe, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress physical evidence seized as the result of his pursuit and seizure by the police. The police officer who initiated the pursuit received a radio dispatch of a burglary in progress, observed defendant carrying a VCR in a pillowcase and a bag containing compact discs, and noticed that defendant matched the description of the suspect in a burglary in the vicinity three days earlier. That information provided the officer with at least a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and gave rise to a common law right of inquiry (see, People v Pines, 281 AD2d 311, 312, lv granted 96 NY2d 923; People v Turner, 275 AD2d 924, lv denied 95 NY2d 939; see generally, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184-185). The flight of defendant, combined with those other specific circumstances indicative of criminality on his part, gave rise to reasonable suspicion justifying the officer’s pursuit of defendant (see, People v Turner, supra; People v Muldrow, 222 AD2d 1076, lv denied 88 NY2d 882; see generally, People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1057-1058). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Kehoe, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1049, 735 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nesmith-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack