LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

THE PEOPLE &C. v RAWLE MCINTOSH Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0088, Police, Bus, Passengers, Encounter, Investigator, York City, Officer, Appellate Division, County Court, Request, Ny2d, Tickets, Bour, Credible Reason, Rawle Mcintosh, According, Reasonable Suspicion, State Constitution, Observed Defendant, Companion, Respondent, Appellant, Commercial Passenger Bus, Wearing Civilian Clothing, Criminal Possession, Amendment, Black Object, Third Time , ContentID: 120248701

Case Documents
1 2001-06-28 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120611
7 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BUS
DEFENDANT
PASSENGERS
ENCOUNTER
INVESTIGATOR
YORK CITY
COURT
OFFICER
APPELLATE DIVISION
COUNTY COURT
REQUEST
NY2D
TICKETS
BOUR
CREDIBLE REASON
RAWLE MCINTOSH
ACCORDING
REASONABLE SUSPICION
STATE CONSTITUTION
OBSERVED DEFENDANT
COMPANION
RESPONDENT
APPELLANT
COMMERCIAL PASSENGER BUS
WEARING CIVILIAN CLOTHING
CRIMINAL POSSESSION
AMENDMENT
BLACK OBJECT
THIRD TIME


   3 No. 81
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Rawle McIntosh,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 88

   June 28, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Shannon K. Geraty, for appellant.
   Kimberly A. Mariani, for respondent. GRAFFEO, J.: This appeal requires
   us to consider the admissibility of evidence seized as the result of
   an encounter between defendant and the police on a commercial
   passenger bus during a stopover in Albany, New York. Based on the
   particular facts and circumstances of this case, we reverse the order
   of the Appellate Division which upheld defendant's conviction.
   According to findings of fact made by County Court, and undisturbed by
   the Appellate Division, at approximately 3:30 A.M. on January 23,
   1997, an investigator from the Albany County Sheriff's Department
   boarded a bus which had arrived from New York City. The investigator,
   wearing civilian clothing with his police badge prominently displayed
   on his coat, was accompanied by two other officers. The investigator
   announced that they were conducting a drug interdiction and "asked
   everyone on board (approximately fifteen passengers) to produce bus
   tickets and identification. He then proceeded to the back of the bus
   to begin examining those items from each passenger." Walking to the
   rear of the bus, the investigator observed defendant and a female
   companion, sitting in the last row of seats, push a black object
   between them. He approached the two individuals and asked for their
   identification and bus tickets. The investigator then obtained consent
   to search defendant's bag, which led to the discovery of a digital
   scale, and asked defendant and his companion to stand, at which time
   he saw a black jacket on defendant's seat. The officer found more than
   two ounces of cocaine in the jacket pocket.
   Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a
   controlled substance in the second degree and one count of criminal
   possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. County Court
   denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence seized by
   the police. Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to both charges and
   was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison
SNIPPETS:
  • The People &c., Respondent, v. Rawle McIntosh, Appellant.
  • This appeal requires us to consider the admissibility of evidence seized as the result of an
  • Based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we reverse the order of the
  • The investigator, wearing civilian clothing with his police badge prominently displayed on
  • The investigator announced that they were conducting a drug interdiction and "asked everyone
  • Walking to the rear of the bus, the investigator observed defendant and a female companion,
  • Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the
  • County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence seized by the police.
  • Defendant asserts that police conduct in this case violated the rules regulating
  • Where police acting in their criminal law enforcement capacity initiate an encounter with
  • Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a particular person was involved in a
  • The Appellate Division held that this inceptive request was "satisfied by the articulable
  • The sole reason for this conduct was that the bus had arrived from New York City which,
  • When both looked away from the officer, he asked them a second and then a third time to
  • This case is akin to a checkpoint stop of vehicles for the investigation of drug activity, a
  • Here when the officers boarded the bus and demanded that all of the travelers produce
  •    |