People v. Terry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Terry

190 A.D.2d 1064, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1299

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1993·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly refused to suppress evidence of a plastic bag and its contents. An anonymous 911 telephone call reported that a Black male wearing a blue and red sweat suit was selling drugs or guns at a specific [1065] street address. That call and the responding officer’s observation of a person matching that description at that address provided the officer with a founded suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify exercise of the common-law right of inquiry (see, People v Stewart, 41 NY2d 65, 69; People v La Pene, 40 NY2d 210, 221; People v Atwood, 105 AD2d 1055). Defendant’s immediate flight upon seeing the officer approach and the officer’s observation that defendant was carrying a plastic bag in his hand heightened the level of suspicion to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was, or had been, engaged in criminal activity and justified the officer’s pursuit of defendant (see, People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734; People v Johnson, 186 AD2d 420; People v Anderson, 185 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 926). Because defendant discarded the plastic bag during a lawful pursuit, subsequent retrieval of it by the police did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Leung, supra, at 736; People v Dukes, 184 AD2d 522, lv denied 80 NY2d 929). Moreover, defendant’s attempt to divest himself of incriminating evidence by tossing the plastic bag under a parked car during that lawful pursuit was an independent act involving a calculated risk and constituted an abandonment of the bag and its contents (see, People v Hall, 152 AD2d 905, affd 75 NY2d 826; People v Anderson, supra; People v Dukes, supra; People v Rivers, 176 AD2d 902, lv denied 79 NY2d 863; People v Rivera, 175 AD2d 78, lv denied 78 NY2d 1129). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly refused to suppress evidence of a plastic bag and its contents. An anonymous 911 telephone call reported that a Black male wearing a blue and red sweat suit was selling drugs or guns at a specific [1065] street address. That call and the responding officer’s observation of a person matching that description at that address provided the officer with a founded suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify exercise of the common-law right of inquiry (see, People v Stewart, 41 NY2d 65, 69; People v La Pene, 40 NY2d 210, 221; People v Atwood, 105 AD2d 1055). Defendant’s immediate flight upon seeing the officer approach and the officer’s observation that defendant was carrying a plastic bag in his hand heightened the level of suspicion to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was, or had been, engaged in criminal activity and justified the officer’s pursuit of defendant (see, People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734; People v Johnson, 186 AD2d 420; People v Anderson, 185 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 926). Because defendant discarded the plastic bag during a lawful pursuit, subsequent retrieval of it by the police did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Leung, supra, at 736; People v Dukes, 184 AD2d 522, lv denied 80 NY2d 929). Moreover, defendant’s attempt to divest himself of incriminating evidence by tossing the plastic bag under a parked car during that lawful pursuit was an independent act involving a calculated risk and constituted an abandonment of the bag and its contents (see, People v Hall, 152 AD2d 905, affd 75 NY2d 826; People v Anderson, supra; People v Dukes, supra; People v Rivers, 176 AD2d 902, lv denied 79 NY2d 863; People v Rivera, 175 AD2d 78, lv denied 78 NY2d 1129). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

People v. Terry, 190 A.D.2d 1064, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 1064 (People v. Terry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related