You are here: / / THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH...
,

THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH A NARROW PASSAGEWAY; THE POLICE WERE NOT IN PURSUIT AND THE HANDGUN DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the police, who followed defendant in a police car as he walked through a narrow passageway (a cut-through) between two streets, were not in pursuit of defendant. Therefore the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly seized:

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer responding to the sound of gunshots observed a person walking towards him a few blocks away from the location of the incident. The officer lost sight of the person before he was able to speak with him to determine whether the person had heard the gunshots, but he relayed over the police radio a generic physical description of the person he had encountered and that person’s location. Shortly thereafter, a second police officer encountered defendant not far from the radioed position. The second officer engaged defendant in a brief conversation from her patrol vehicle, after which defendant entered a nearby cut-through—i.e., a pedestrian pathway that connected two streets. When defendant first entered the cut-through, the second officer did not consider him a suspect in the shooting and he was not engaged in any unlawful activity. Nonetheless, the second officer, still in her patrol vehicle and now accompanied by another officer in a separate patrol vehicle, followed defendant along the pathway, maintaining a distance of about five feet from defendant. The cut-through was so narrow at one point that the officers would not have been able to open the doors of their patrol vehicles. When defendant reached the end of the cut-through, he removed a handgun from his pocket and ran. As he ran, defendant discarded the handgun and was thereafter arrested. * * *

The police did not activate their vehicles’ overhead lights or sirens, exit their vehicles, or significantly limit defendant’s freedom of movement along the pedestrian path … . Indeed, defendant remained free to keep walking down the path, even if at one point on the path he could not have turned around and traveled in the opposite direction. People v Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 06594, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

You might also like
Unlawful Imprisonment Charge Merged With Assault Charge
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM PROPERLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SECONDARY EVIDENCE (HEARSAY TESTIMONY) AND EXTRINSIC DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR COLLATERAL MATTERS LIKE IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO A CORE ISSUE; HERE THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE PRESENTED TO A BANK EMPLOYEE WAS RELEVANT TO THE ‘THREATENED USE OF FORCE ‘ ELEMENT OF ROBBERY (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT.
EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ARGUABLY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A POTENTIALLY ACTIONABLE DELAY IN TREATMENT, THE AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED ONLY CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ASSERTIONS THAT EARLIER DETECTION AND TREATMENT WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME (PROXIMATE CAUSE) (FOURTH DEPT).
Competency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Not Reviewable On Appeal Where Defendant Convicted Upon Legally Sufficient Trial Evidence
HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY A CODEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW THE STATE OF MIND OF THE INVESTIGATORS QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT; THE INVESTIGATORS’ STATE OF MIND WAS NOT RELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION... THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S...