People v. Steele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Steele

32 A.D.3d 326, 819 N.Y.S.2d 665

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 326 (People v. Steele) 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. Steele, 32 A.D.3d 326, 819 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied and the indictment reinstated.

The radio communication from the testifying officer, who possessed probable cause to stop the person “on the bike running,” and the defendant’s apprehension by two fellow officers “literally” seconds later was sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest (see People v Rosario, 78 NY2d 583, 588 [1991], cert denied 502 US 1109 [1992]; see also People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909, 910 [1998]; People v Destine, 216 AD2d 127 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 900 [1995]). The officer’s testimony, along with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, met the People’s burden of establishing the content of the description. Concur— Buckley, P.J, Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied and the indictment reinstated.

The radio communication from the testifying officer, who possessed probable cause to stop the person “on the bike running,” and the defendant’s apprehension by two fellow officers “literally” seconds later was sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest (see People v Rosario, 78 NY2d 583, 588 [1991], cert denied 502 US 1109 [1992]; see also People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909, 910 [1998]; People v Destine, 216 AD2d 127 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 900 [1995]). The officer’s testimony, along with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, met the People’s burden of establishing the content of the description. Concur— Buckley, P.J, Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 326, 819 N.Y.S.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steele-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack