People v. Parmiter

55 A.D.2d 938, 390 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10212
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 24, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 938 (People v. Parmiter) 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. Parmiter, 55 A.D.2d 938, 390 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 15, 1975, convicting him of attempted possession of weapons, etc., as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, motion granted, and indictment dismissed. On the record before us, we conclude that the arresting officer did not possess sufficient grounds to reasonably suspect that the defendant was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime (see People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106; People v Rivera, 14 NY2d 441). His testimony at the preliminary hearing did not satisfy the well-settled requirements which would justify a "seizure” in a public place (see People v King, 50 AD2d 521; People v Graves, 49 AD2d 844; People v Lewis, 49 AD2d 558; see, also, People v Cantor, supra), and the addition to that testimony at the suppression hearing of testimony to the effect that at one point defendant had "hitched up” his pants so as to reveal a portion of a gun butt, has all the indicia of having been patently tailored to overcome the defendant’s objection (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; accord People v Manning, 51 AD2d 933; see, also, People v McCormick, 39 AD2d 590). As we stated in Garafolo (supra, p 88) "We refuse to credit testimony which has all the appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections.” Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Harris
2020 NY Slip Op 08079 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Gonzalez
115 A.D.2d 73 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Hayes
116 A.D.2d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Corso
129 Misc. 2d 590 (New York County Courts, 1985)
People v. Brown
107 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Hardy
106 A.D.2d 403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. King
102 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Cruz
89 A.D.2d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Quinones
61 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.2d 938, 390 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parmiter-nyappdiv-1977.