You are here: / / Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit.
,

Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit.

Flight was not sufficient to justify police pursuit.  A police officer had been shot in the afternoon.  About eight hours after the shooting, uniformed officers approached the defendant as he was walking within a block or two of where the shooting occurred.  The defendant said “What, we can’t go to the store?” turned his back, made a gesture toward his waistband, and ran. The police pursued him and saw him discard a handgun from his pocket as he was being tackled by an officer.  The defendant subsequently pled guilty to criminal possession of a weapon.  The Fourth Department reversed the conviction and vacated the sentence. “Flight alone … is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry …”.  Because there were no “specific circumstances indicating that the suspect [was] engaged in criminal activity,” there was no “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, “the necessary predicate for police pursuit…”.  People v Cady, 1427, KA 12-00337 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

DeBour, street stops

You might also like
No Requirement that Defendant Submit Affidavit in Support of Suppression Motion; No Requirement Defendant Deny Commission of Charged Offense to Warrant a Hearing on a Suppression Motion
Motion to Vacate Pursuant to CPLR 5015 Should Have Been Granted On “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and “Fraud Upon the Court” Grounds
ALTHOUGH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE POSTING OF AN UNDERTAKING (FOURTH DEPT).
A MEDICAL CORPORATION CAN BE LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendants Accused of Crimes Not Listed in the Controlling Statutes Are Not Eligible for the Judicial Diversion Program—The Statutes Do Not Allow for Judicial Discretion
WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH WORK IS PERFORMED, A GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE STEMS FROM THE EXERCISE OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; INFORMING THE WORKER OF WHAT WORK SHOULD BE DONE, MONITORING THE TIME AND QUALITY OF THE WORK, ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY REGULATIONS, AND HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK FOR SAFETY REASONS, DO NOT AMOUNT TO THE EXERCISE OF “SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY” (FOURTH DEPT).
UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

General Question Whether Defendant Was “A Law Abiding Person” Violated Sandoval... Guilty Plea Waives All Nonjurisdictional Pre-Trial and Trial Defects.