People v. Sevilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sevilla

182 A.D.2d 454, 581 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5714

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

DecidedApril 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 454 (People v. Sevilla) 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. Sevilla, 182 A.D.2d 454, 581 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J., at hearing, plea and sentence) rendered July 11, 1990, which convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentenced him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate prison term of from 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, after committing a gunpoint robbery, was pursued by an employee of the establishment until further pursuit was dissuaded by the display of a pistol. The employee called the police. Based upon this information, a responding officer arrested defendant.

The denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, inter alia, physical evidence and identification evidence, under the circumstances, was proper. The information upon which the officer acted was supplied by a highly reliable source and consequently, the officer possessed a sufficiently articulable reason to approach defendant and inquire as to his conduct (see, People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 213). Further, the viewing of the waistline bulge in the small of defendant’s back provided the officer with ample justification to pursue the investigation (see, People v Stroller, 42 NY2d 1052).

Nor do we find the identification of defendant near the scene to have been improper (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d [455]*4551023). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J., at hearing, plea and sentence) rendered July 11, 1990, which convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentenced him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate prison term of from 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, after committing a gunpoint robbery, was pursued by an employee of the establishment until further pursuit was dissuaded by the display of a pistol. The employee called the police. Based upon this information, a responding officer arrested defendant.

The denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, inter alia, physical evidence and identification evidence, under the circumstances, was proper. The information upon which the officer acted was supplied by a highly reliable source and consequently, the officer possessed a sufficiently articulable reason to approach defendant and inquire as to his conduct (see, People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 213). Further, the viewing of the waistline bulge in the small of defendant’s back provided the officer with ample justification to pursue the investigation (see, People v Stroller, 42 NY2d 1052).

Nor do we find the identification of defendant near the scene to have been improper (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d [455]*4551023). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 454, 581 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sevilla-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack