People v. Robinson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Robinson

501 N.E.2d 14, 68 N.Y.2d 843, 508 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20533

DecidedOctober 9, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 501 N.E.2d 14 (People v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 501 N.E.2d 14, 68 N.Y.2d 843, 508 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20533 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found on his person following an arrest for unlawful possession of a handgun.

As stated in the undisturbed findings of the suppression court, when the arresting officers saw defendant enter a laundromat, they had information from a reliable informant, based on his personal observations, that defendant, who was said to be armed with a weapon and carrying drugs, would enter the laundromat that day for the purpose of secreting drugs. The informant had been supplying information about this defendant for some time and, on the day of the arrest, described him and his clothing for the police. Under the circumstances the initial intrusion of the police, in entering the laundromat and identifying themselves with guns drawn, was reasonable (see, People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14, 21; cf. People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267). When defendant, on seeing the police, reached for his belt, the conduct of the police in grabbing defendant’s hand and removing the gun was justified. Defendant’s subsequent arrest for unlawful possession of a weapon and the search of defendant’s person incident to that arrest were proper.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., 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. The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found on his person following an arrest for unlawful possession of a handgun.

As stated in the undisturbed findings of the suppression court, when the arresting officers saw defendant enter a laundromat, they had information from a reliable informant, based on his personal observations, that defendant, who was said to be armed with a weapon and carrying drugs, would enter the laundromat that day for the purpose of secreting drugs. The informant had been supplying information about this defendant for some time and, on the day of the arrest, described him and his clothing for the police. Under the circumstances the initial intrusion of the police, in entering the laundromat and identifying themselves with guns drawn, was reasonable (see, People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14, 21; cf. People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267). When defendant, on seeing the police, reached for his belt, the conduct of the police in grabbing defendant’s hand and removing the gun was justified. Defendant’s subsequent arrest for unlawful possession of a weapon and the search of defendant’s person incident to that arrest were proper.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 N.E.2d 14, 68 N.Y.2d 843, 508 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack