PEOPLE, & C., RESPONDENT, v. TYRONE POWELL, APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 1063, 681 N.E.2d 1278, 659 N.Y.S.2d 832 (1997).
May 6, 1997
1 No. 79 (1997 NY Int. 72)
Decided May 6, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Appellant.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In People v Hollman (79 NY2d 181, 191), we reaffirmed that police
officers, acting upon an articulable reason, may approach an
individual to request information concerning the individual's
identity, destination or reason for being in an area and, "(i)f the
individual is carrying something that would appear to a trained police
officer to be unusual, the police officer can ask about that object."
Defendant was observed by two Department of Sanitation peace officers
in an area known for illegal dumping, with a 50 gallon cardboard
barrel protruding from his car trunk. After defendant passed the
officers twice, turned off his car's headlights, and backed the wrong
way up a one-way street to a spot where there was a hole in a fence,
the officers reasonably inquired of defendant whether he intended to
dump the barrel, and what was in the barrel. Thus, there is support in
the record for the Appellate Division's determination that the
officers' request for information was justified. Defendant's motion to
suppress his response (that he had killed his girlfriend, and her body
was in the barrel) and the physical evidence was properly denied.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone,
Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Decided May 6, 1997
SNIPPETS:
PEOPLE, & C., RESPONDENT, v. TYRONE POWELL, APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In People v Hollman, we reaffirmed that police officers, acting upon an articulable reason,
Defendant was observed by two Department of Sanitation peace officers in an area known for
After defendant passed the officers twice, turned off his car's headlights, and backed the
there is support in the record for the Appellate Division's determination that the officers'
Defendant's motion to suppress his response (that he had killed his girlfriend, and her body
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|