From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1998
249 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 6, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The street encounter between the police officer and the defendant, wherein the police officer identified himself and sought to speak to the defendant, constituted the "minimal intrusion of approaching to request information" ( People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223; see also, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 190; People v. Wells, 226 A.D.2d 406; People v. Thomas, 203 A.D.2d 96). "This minimal intrusion is permissible when there is some `objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality'" ( People v. Wells, 226 A.D.2d 406, supra, quoting People v. De Bour, supra, at 223). At bar, the police officer was investigating a series of "pattern" robberies. The officer possessed the photocopy of a photograph of a suspect in those robberies, and noted that the defendant fit the general description of the suspect. Thus, when the defendant ignored the officer's request to speak to him, attempted to run, and put his hand to his waistband, the officer properly stopped him. The "[p]olice may forcibly stop or pursue an individual if they have information which, although not yielding the probable cause necessary to justify an arrest, provides them with a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed" ( People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444, 447; see also, People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734; People v. De Bour, supra). Once the defendant dropped a gun after being legally stopped, the police had probable cause to arrest him ( see, People v. Reyes, 83 N.Y.2d 945, cert denied 513 U.S. 991).

Since the police were justified in stopping the defendant, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun he dropped. Additionally, since the defendant's statement that he carried the gun for protection was spontaneous, the court properly denied that branch of the motion which was to suppress that statement ( see, Rhode Is. v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-301; People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1998
249 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONOVAN JACKSON…

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

Date published: Apr 6, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 895

Citing Cases

People v. Wilson

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in denying suppression of a handgun seized from…

People v. Spears

n their way to a disturbance call, defendant's presence in the same place on the corner ten minutes later…