People v. Williamson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williamson

107 A.D.2d 727, 484 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49835

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 727 (People v. Williamson) 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. Williamson, 107 A.D.2d 727, 484 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered November 20, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of those branches of defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress certain physical evidence and statements made to the police.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant was walking at 4:45 a.m. in a neighborhood known for its high rate of burglaries, carrying two large plastic garbage bags which appeared to contain large bulky items. These circumstances justified the officers’ initial approach and limited detention of the defendant for the purpose of inquiry (People v Moore, 47 NY2d 911, revg 62 AD2d 155; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 213, 223). When defendant voluntarily placed the bags by his side, the officer was able to observe a stereo and a briefcase with a calculator protruding from inside the unclosed bags. Defendant’s implausible response that the items were connected to his construction business and his inability to even state what was contained in the bags elevated the encounter to one which would support the finding of probable cause for an [728]*728arrest and limited search for weapons. The facts of this case are distinguishable from those in the recent Court of Appeals case of People v Johnson (64 NY2d 617). Accordingly. the branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. In light of this determination and defendant’s statement on appeal that, should this court make such a determination, he does not seek to vacate his plea, we need not reach the question of the admissibility of the statements made to the police officers. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered November 20, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of those branches of defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress certain physical evidence and statements made to the police.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant was walking at 4:45 a.m. in a neighborhood known for its high rate of burglaries, carrying two large plastic garbage bags which appeared to contain large bulky items. These circumstances justified the officers’ initial approach and limited detention of the defendant for the purpose of inquiry (People v Moore, 47 NY2d 911, revg 62 AD2d 155; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 213, 223). When defendant voluntarily placed the bags by his side, the officer was able to observe a stereo and a briefcase with a calculator protruding from inside the unclosed bags. Defendant’s implausible response that the items were connected to his construction business and his inability to even state what was contained in the bags elevated the encounter to one which would support the finding of probable cause for an [728]*728arrest and limited search for weapons. The facts of this case are distinguishable from those in the recent Court of Appeals case of People v Johnson (64 NY2d 617). Accordingly. the branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. In light of this determination and defendant’s statement on appeal that, should this court make such a determination, he does not seek to vacate his plea, we need not reach the question of the admissibility of the statements made to the police officers. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 727, 484 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williamson-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack