People v. Powell

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Powell

681 N.E.2d 1278, 89 N.Y.2d 1063, 659 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 744

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 681 N.E.2d 1278 (People v. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Powell, 681 N.E.2d 1278, 89 N.Y.2d 1063, 659 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 744 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*1064 In People v Hollman (79 NY2d 181, 191), we reaffirmed that police officers, acting upon an articulable reason, may approach an individual to request information concerning the individual’s identity, destination or reason for being in an area and, "[i]f the individual is carrying something that would appear to a trained police officer to be unusual, the police officer can ask about that object.” Defendant was observed by two Department of Sanitation peace officers in an area known for illegal dumping, with a 50-gallon cardboard barrel protruding from his car trunk. After defendant passed the officers twice, turned off his car’s héadlights, and backed the wrong way up a one-way street to a spot where there was a hole in a fence, the officers reasonably inquired of defendant whether he intended to dump the barrel, and what was in the barrel. Thus, there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s determination that the officers’ request for information was justified. Defendant’s motion to suppress his response (that he had killed his girlfriend, and her body was in the barrel) and the physical evidence was properly denied.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*1064 In People v Hollman (79 NY2d 181, 191), we reaffirmed that police officers, acting upon an articulable reason, may approach an individual to request information concerning the individual’s identity, destination or reason for being in an area and, "[i]f the individual is carrying something that would appear to a trained police officer to be unusual, the police officer can ask about that object.” Defendant was observed by two Department of Sanitation peace officers in an area known for illegal dumping, with a 50-gallon cardboard barrel protruding from his car trunk. After defendant passed the officers twice, turned off his car’s héadlights, and backed the wrong way up a one-way street to a spot where there was a hole in a fence, the officers reasonably inquired of defendant whether he intended to dump the barrel, and what was in the barrel. Thus, there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s determination that the officers’ request for information was justified. Defendant’s motion to suppress his response (that he had killed his girlfriend, and her body was in the barrel) and the physical evidence was properly denied.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 N.E.2d 1278, 89 N.Y.2d 1063, 659 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-powell-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack