From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jennings

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 28, 1978
45 N.Y.2d 998 (N.Y. 1978)

Summary

holding that police action in blocking defendant's vehicle with their own in order to investigate innocuous activity, significantly interrupted defendant's liberty of movement, and constituted an unconstitutional seizure

Summary of this case from Hall v. City of White Plains

Opinion

Argued October 19, 1978

Decided November 28, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, DOUGLAS F. YOUNG, J.

Howard B. Comet, James J. McDonough, Matthew Muraskin and Michael J. Obus for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Martin I. Saperstein, William C. Donnino and Marshall D. Trager of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed. The issue presented in this case is whether the activities of the defendant, as observed by the police, justified the blocking of defendant's vehicle so as to prevent its forward movement.

While on routine patrol in an unmarked car two police officers, serving as members of the Nassau County Police Department crime prevention unit, parked their vehicle in the Lake Success Shopping Center. During the period of observation they noticed codefendant Milton walking back and forth in front of several stores in the shopping center. One of the officers followed Milton who walked to the rear and then returned to the front of the shopping center. Milton met defendant Jennings, who had exited from a restaurant, and they then drove to an adjacent parking lot. The officers pursued them, and blocked their vehicle by pulling up perpendicularly in front of it.

The relatively innocuous behavior of the defendant prior to the stop might at most have justified an inquiry and investigation to determine if criminal activity was at hand (People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). But, in blocking defendant's vehicle with their own, the officers engaged in excessively intrusive conduct which "significant[ly] interrupt[ed] * * * [defendant's] liberty of movement", thereby effecting an unconstitutional seizure (People v Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 111). Defendant's statements which flowed directly from the illegal seizure, should therefore have been suppressed.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Jennings

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 28, 1978
45 N.Y.2d 998 (N.Y. 1978)

holding that police action in blocking defendant's vehicle with their own in order to investigate innocuous activity, significantly interrupted defendant's liberty of movement, and constituted an unconstitutional seizure

Summary of this case from Hall v. City of White Plains

holding that a seizure occurred when officers blocked the defendant's vehicle in a parking lot with a patrol car

Summary of this case from People v. Lucynski

holding that a seizure occurred when officers blocked the defendant's vehicle in a parking lot with a patrol car

Summary of this case from People v. Lucynski

holding that where police park perpendicular to car in parking lot, thereby blocking vehicle, seizure occurs

Summary of this case from State v. Fogg
Case details for

People v. Jennings

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent v. KENNETH RAY JENNINGS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 28, 1978

Citations

45 N.Y.2d 998 (N.Y. 1978)
413 N.Y.S.2d 117
385 N.E.2d 1045

Citing Cases

People v. Lucynski

(holding that "[b]locking a vehicle so its occupant is unable to leave during the course of an investigatory…

People v. Loper

Whether a police intrusion has amounted to a forcible stop and detention turns on whether there has been “a…