People v. Soler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Soler

53 A.D.2d 704, 385 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13470

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

DecidedJune 28, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 704 (People v. Soler) 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. Soler, 53 A.D.2d 704, 385 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 8, 1975, as granted the branch of defendant’s motion which sought to suppress a certain weapon. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and motion denied insofar as it sought to suppress the weapon. Based upon the information supplied to them and upon defendant’s flight, the police officers were justified in attempting to stop and question him. Moreover, the discovery of a loaded gun in the immediate proximity of the defendant, when coupled with the officers’ earlier observations, furnished the probable cause necessary for the arrest. Nevertheless, the Criminal Term suppressed the weapon on the ground that the People had failed to establish a sufficient connection between the defendant and the gun. This was error. The purpose of a suppression hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to ascertain whether the police had lawful cause to take the action which led to the arrest or seizure [705]*705(see People v Merola, 30 AD2d 963; People v Harrington, 70 Misc 2d 303). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 8, 1975, as granted the branch of defendant’s motion which sought to suppress a certain weapon. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and motion denied insofar as it sought to suppress the weapon. Based upon the information supplied to them and upon defendant’s flight, the police officers were justified in attempting to stop and question him. Moreover, the discovery of a loaded gun in the immediate proximity of the defendant, when coupled with the officers’ earlier observations, furnished the probable cause necessary for the arrest. Nevertheless, the Criminal Term suppressed the weapon on the ground that the People had failed to establish a sufficient connection between the defendant and the gun. This was error. The purpose of a suppression hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to ascertain whether the police had lawful cause to take the action which led to the arrest or seizure [705]*705(see People v Merola, 30 AD2d 963; People v Harrington, 70 Misc 2d 303). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 704, 385 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-soler-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack