People v. Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stevens

255 A.D.2d 145, 680 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11729

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 145 (People v. Stevens) 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. Stevens, 255 A.D.2d 145, 680 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), rendered June 6, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal [146]*146possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. In the course of exercising his right to inquire and questioning defendant and his companions about a report, received moments before, of a heated dispute involving a firearm at a specified building, the officer encountered an escalating situation in which he reasonably perceived his safety was in jeopardy (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 221, 223). In an early morning encounter in a small enclosed vestibule, the request of four individuals to raise their hands was a reasonable and minimal intrusion where these individuals were observed by the police to be engaged in a dispute, appeared very nervous, claimed that one was a State Trooper (and presumably armed), and did not truthfully and forthrightly answer the officer’s questions. The intrusion, which resulted in the officer’s observation of a firearm, was extremely minimal and designed simply to insure the officer’s safety (see, People v Oeller, 191 AD2d 355, 356, aff'd 82 NY2d 774). In any event, we find that the police action was based on reasonable suspicion that one or more of the group was armed and posed a threat to the officers. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), rendered June 6, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal [146]*146possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. In the course of exercising his right to inquire and questioning defendant and his companions about a report, received moments before, of a heated dispute involving a firearm at a specified building, the officer encountered an escalating situation in which he reasonably perceived his safety was in jeopardy (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 221, 223). In an early morning encounter in a small enclosed vestibule, the request of four individuals to raise their hands was a reasonable and minimal intrusion where these individuals were observed by the police to be engaged in a dispute, appeared very nervous, claimed that one was a State Trooper (and presumably armed), and did not truthfully and forthrightly answer the officer’s questions. The intrusion, which resulted in the officer’s observation of a firearm, was extremely minimal and designed simply to insure the officer’s safety (see, People v Oeller, 191 AD2d 355, 356, aff'd 82 NY2d 774). In any event, we find that the police action was based on reasonable suspicion that one or more of the group was armed and posed a threat to the officers. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 145, 680 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stevens-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack