People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilson

5 A.D.3d 408, 773 N.Y.S.2d 95

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 408 (People v. Wilson) 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. Wilson, 5 A.D.3d 408, 773 N.Y.S.2d 95 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered April 29, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court credited the arresting officer’s testimony that the police initially approached the defendant because of his resemblance to an individual portrayed in a police department “wanted” poster, and we find no basis to disturb that credibility determination (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The officer testified that a wanted poster is generated after an individual is identified as the perpetrator of a crime. Based on the defendant’s resemblance to the individual in the wanted poster, the police had, at the very least, the right to approach [409]*409him to request information (see People v Bethea, 239 AD2d 510 [1997]; see also People v Jacob, 202 AD2d 444 [1994]).

The defendant’s subsequent flight when the officers asked if they could speak to him provided reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop him (see People v Woods, 98 NY2d 627 [2002]; People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447-448 [1992]; People v Sergeant, 281 AD2d 438, 439 [2001]), and his abandonment of a weapon during the chase provided the police with probable cause to arrest him (see People v Wigfall, 295 AD2d 222, 223 [2002]; People v Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455 [2002]; People v Lipsey, 247 AD2d 246 [1998]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the drugs recovered upon a search of his pockets (see People v Cummings, supra; People v Valentine, 220 AD2d 708, 709 [1995]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered April 29, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court credited the arresting officer’s testimony that the police initially approached the defendant because of his resemblance to an individual portrayed in a police department “wanted” poster, and we find no basis to disturb that credibility determination (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The officer testified that a wanted poster is generated after an individual is identified as the perpetrator of a crime. Based on the defendant’s resemblance to the individual in the wanted poster, the police had, at the very least, the right to approach [409]*409him to request information (see People v Bethea, 239 AD2d 510 [1997]; see also People v Jacob, 202 AD2d 444 [1994]).

The defendant’s subsequent flight when the officers asked if they could speak to him provided reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop him (see People v Woods, 98 NY2d 627 [2002]; People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447-448 [1992]; People v Sergeant, 281 AD2d 438, 439 [2001]), and his abandonment of a weapon during the chase provided the police with probable cause to arrest him (see People v Wigfall, 295 AD2d 222, 223 [2002]; People v Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455 [2002]; People v Lipsey, 247 AD2d 246 [1998]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the drugs recovered upon a search of his pockets (see People v Cummings, supra; People v Valentine, 220 AD2d 708, 709 [1995]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 408, 773 N.Y.S.2d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilson-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack