People v. Pridgen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pridgen

3 A.D.3d 393, 769 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J), rendered October 25, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police officer’s observation of defendant walking in a drug-prone neighborhood with a companion who was openly sniffing a bag of marijuana, provided the officer with a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and justified a common-law inquiry of defendant as to whether he had any contraband. Defendant was not merely in proximity to unlawful activity, but was clearly accompanying a person who was engaged in such activity (see People v Curry, 213 AD2d 664 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 971 [1995]; compare People v Leveridge, 204 AD2d 246 [1994], [394] lv denied 84 NY2d 828 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J), rendered October 25, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police officer’s observation of defendant walking in a drug-prone neighborhood with a companion who was openly sniffing a bag of marijuana, provided the officer with a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and justified a common-law inquiry of defendant as to whether he had any contraband. Defendant was not merely in proximity to unlawful activity, but was clearly accompanying a person who was engaged in such activity (see People v Curry, 213 AD2d 664 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 971 [1995]; compare People v Leveridge, 204 AD2d 246 [1994], [394] lv denied 84 NY2d 828 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

People v. Pridgen, 3 A.D.3d 393, 769 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

3 A.D.3d 393 (People v. Pridgen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related