 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OFFICERS REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT CAR COURT WILLIAM SUPPRESSION APPELLATE CRUZ RODRIGUEZ WEAPON NY2D EVIDENCE GUN JUDGE VEHICLE SUPPORT RESPONDENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SUPPRESSION HEARING APPELLATE DIVISION MOTION POSSESSION FRISK CONCEALMENT PERMIT COMPANIONS MALE ANONYMOUS TIPSTER |
3 No. 67
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
William "II",
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2 No. 81 SSM 8
The People &c.,
Appellant,
v.
Luis Rodriguez, a/k/a Manuel Perez,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Case No. 67
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 66
June 6, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Charles Guttman, for appellant.
Dale A. Worrall, for respondent.
Case No. 81 SSM 8: Submitted by Jill Gross-Marks, for appellant.
Submitted by Kerry Elgarten, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE
, J.:
In the cases before us, the People concede that reasonable suspicion
was required to support both the stop and attempted frisk in People v
William II, and the traffic stop in People v Rodriguez. The common
issue is whether the facts and information the police possessed, when
coupled with an anonymous tip that a described individual was carrying
a gun, established reasonable suspicion for the intrusions. We hold
they did not.
In People v William II, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal
possession of marihuana in the third degree and was adjudicated a
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
