LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEOPLE v MARTINEZ Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>080_0444, Police, Officers, Ny2d, Arrest, Justify, Pursuit, Reasonable Suspicion, Drugs, Supra, Store, Leung, Officer Radzinsky, Bour, Howard, Seizure, Commit, Crime, Support, Freedom, Flight, Evidence, Criminal Activity, Appellant, Acting Chief Judge, Basis, Grocery Store, Hide-a-key, Abandonment , ContentID: 120248986

Case Documents
1 1992-12-16 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120896
4 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT
OFFICERS
NY2D
ARREST
JUSTIFY
PURSUIT
REASONABLE SUSPICION
DRUGS
SUPRA
STORE
LEUNG
OFFICER RADZINSKY
BOUR
HOWARD
SEIZURE
COMMIT
CRIME
SUPPORT
FREEDOM
COURTS
FLIGHT
EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
APPELLANT
ACTING CHIEF JUDGE
BASIS
GROCERY STORE
HIDE-A-KEY
ABANDONMENT


  THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. STEVEN MARTINEZ, APPELLANT.

    80 N.Y.2d 444, 606 N.E.2d 951, 591 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1992).
    December 16, 1992

   2 No. 246
   Decided December 16, 1992
     _________________________________________________________________

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

   Marcy Chynsky, for Appellant.
   Maryanne Luciano, for Respondent.

   SIMONS, ACTING CHIEF JUDGE:

   This appeal addresses (1) the factual basis necessary to justify
   police officers' pursuit and detention of a fleeing individual, and
   (2) whether, under the circumstances presented, police officers
   properly pursued defendant into a nearby grocery store, recovered
   drugs he had discarded and arrested him for unlawful possession of
   those drugs.

   On April 7, 1989, at about 10:50 p.m., New York City Police Officer
   Radzinsky was patrolling in a high-crime area with his partner in a
   marked police car when he saw defendant reach up and remove a metal
   Hide-a-Key box from the steel grate of a store window. Officer
   Radzinsky was aware that the area was known for its drug activity; he
   personally had made approximately 50 drug- related arrests in the
   vicinity. He also knew, from his experience and training, that
   Hide-a-Key boxes are sometimes used by drug dealers to "stash" drugs.

   After observing defendant, the officers stopped and got out of their
   car. They were dressed in plainclothes, but Officer Radzinsky had his
   identifying badge prominently displayed and defendant knew him to be a
   police officer because defendant had been present when Officer
   Radzinsky previously arrested a friend of his. At the officers'
   approach, defendant turned and ran a few steps into a nearby grocery
   store. The officers chased defendant into the store, saw him pass off
   the box to co- defendant Palmer, and saw Palmer go to the rear of the
   store and throw the box to the floor. Officer Radzinsky retrieved the
   box and found it contained 17 vials of what later proved to be crack
   cocaine.

   Defendant contends that the police had no justifiable basis to pursue
SNIPPETS:
  • THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. STEVEN MARTINEZ, APPELLANT.
  • This appeal addresses the factual basis necessary to justify police officers' pursuit and
  • Officer Radzinsky was aware that the area was known for its drug activity; he personally had
  • He also knew, from his experience and training, that Hide-a-Key boxes are sometimes used by
  • The parties have urged two different standards for determining the legality of the police
  • The controlling rule is stated in People v Leung (supra): the police may pursue a fleeing
  • Thus, we have held that the police need have only some objective credible reason to approach
  • Included among them are forcible stops and seizures which take place whenever an individual's
  • The courts have applied this rule somewhat unevenly because of language found in People v
  • Reasonable suspicion represents that "quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily
  • Because the determination that reasonable suspicion existed involves mixed questions of law
  • Defendant had a right to refuse to respond to a police inquiry and his flight when the
  • Inasmuch as the pursuit of defendant was justified, his abandonment of the Hide-a-Key box was
  • Opinion by Acting Chief Judge Simons.
  •    |