People v. Woods

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Woods

475 N.E.2d 442, 64 N.Y.2d 736, 485 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4848

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 475 N.E.2d 442 (People v. Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Woods, 475 N.E.2d 442, 64 N.Y.2d 736, 485 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4848 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In view of the findings of fact that the officers had reasonable grounds to fear for their safety, it cannot be said that they were unjustified in drawing their handguns as a precautionary measure when they approached defendant in his automobile. (See People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14, 21.) Nor was it unreasonable, in light of his past experience with defendant, for one of the officers to pat defendant in the chest area when defendant quickly reached toward the breast area of his jacket, and for that officer, upon feeling a hard object, to reach inside the jacket and retrieve it. (See People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271; Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 US 106,111-112.) Nor can we conclude, as a matter of law, that the police perpetrated a pretext stop or arrest.

*738 We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke' and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In view of the findings of fact that the officers had reasonable grounds to fear for their safety, it cannot be said that they were unjustified in drawing their handguns as a precautionary measure when they approached defendant in his automobile. (See People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14, 21.) Nor was it unreasonable, in light of his past experience with defendant, for one of the officers to pat defendant in the chest area when defendant quickly reached toward the breast area of his jacket, and for that officer, upon feeling a hard object, to reach inside the jacket and retrieve it. (See People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271; Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 US 106,111-112.) Nor can we conclude, as a matter of law, that the police perpetrated a pretext stop or arrest.

*738 We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke' and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 N.E.2d 442, 64 N.Y.2d 736, 485 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woods-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack