From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Casimey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 3, 2007
39 A.D.3d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Summary

finding that asking the defendant to stop did not constitute a seizure

Summary of this case from People v. DeSilva

Opinion

No. 661.

April 3, 2007.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 12, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Goldstein Weinstein, Bronx (David J. Goldstein of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Aaron Wolfson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Catterson, JJ.


The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record ( see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The police received a detailed anonymous tip that a person who precisely matched defendant's description was selling drugs at a particular location, and they also spoke to a security guard at the scene, who stated that he had observed defendant exchanging objects for money. This was more than sufficient to support the hearing court's finding that the police had, at the very least, a founded suspicion of criminality, and were thus authorized to exercise their common-law right of inquiry ( see People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 498). The officers merely asked defendant to stop, which, standing alone, did not constitute a seizure ( see People v Bora, 83 NY2d 531, 535-536), and they did not go beyond the bounds of a common-law inquiry, which permits the police to ask whether the person being questioned is willing to consent to a search ( see People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 191-192). The People established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant voluntarily consented to the search ( see generally People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128-131). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.


Summaries of

People v. Casimey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 3, 2007
39 A.D.3d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

finding that asking the defendant to stop did not constitute a seizure

Summary of this case from People v. DeSilva
Case details for

People v. Casimey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGEL CASIMEY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 3, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
834 N.Y.S.2d 103

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The information in a police radio report, based on…

People v. DeSilva

Said inquiry, including Abdullah's request that the defendant “stop,” did not constitute a forcible seizure…