People v. Spivey

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Spivey

389 N.E.2d 1056, 46 N.Y.2d 1014, 416 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1937

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 389 N.E.2d 1056 (People v. Spivey) 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. Spivey, 389 N.E.2d 1056, 46 N.Y.2d 1014, 416 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1937 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

On the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the challenged police conduct was unreasonable. Having just received a police radio call informing them that an armed *1016 robbery had been, committed (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636, 640-641), the officers were justified in stopping defendant, who met the description of the robber and was walking on a deserted street in the vicinity of the crime (see People v Green, 35 NY2d 193, 196). Similarly, the limited pat-down of Spivey was proper. During questioning, defendant refused to furnish his name or a specific address, and he repeatedly removed his hands from the radio car and shuffled them around. Given this situation and defendant’s status as an armed-robbery suspect, it was quite reasonable for the officer to investigate the suspicious bulges in the jacket pockets (see, also, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902; People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

On the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the challenged police conduct was unreasonable. Having just received a police radio call informing them that an armed *1016 robbery had been, committed (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636, 640-641), the officers were justified in stopping defendant, who met the description of the robber and was walking on a deserted street in the vicinity of the crime (see People v Green, 35 NY2d 193, 196). Similarly, the limited pat-down of Spivey was proper. During questioning, defendant refused to furnish his name or a specific address, and he repeatedly removed his hands from the radio car and shuffled them around. Given this situation and defendant’s status as an armed-robbery suspect, it was quite reasonable for the officer to investigate the suspicious bulges in the jacket pockets (see, also, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902; People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 N.E.2d 1056, 46 N.Y.2d 1014, 416 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spivey-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack