People v. Alvarez, 795 N.E.2d 13 (NY 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Alvarez, 795 N.E.2d 13 (NY 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …the rear of his pants in between his buttocks. at p. 550 ⚠ not in text
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Couch
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the officers had a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, triggering a common-law right of inquiry when they initially approached the defendant (see People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549, 550 [2003]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; People v Bolta, 96 AD3d 773, 774 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Couch
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the officers had a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, triggering a common-law right of inquiry when they initially approached the defendant (see People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549, 550 [2003]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; People v Bolta, 96 AD3d 773, 774 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Demitrus B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officers’ observations and their training and experience regarding the common methods of drug packaging, the officers had probable cause to search respondent, resulting in the seizure of the bags of crack cocaine and money that were in his possession (see People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549, 550 [2003]; People v Febus, 11 AD3d 554, 556 [2004], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 743 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stafford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The hearing court was correct in finding that the observations of the police established probable cause for the defendant’s arrest (see People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549, 550 [2003]; People v Fleury, 8 AD3d 585, 587 [2004] ) for reckless driving prior to the search of his person (cf. People v Howell, 49 NY2d 778, 779 [1980]; People v Carvajales, 152 AD2d 675 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Febus (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
However, the defendant contends that the search of the defendant’s jacket pocket “went far beyond the allowable confines of a frisk.” In People v Alvarez ( 100 NY2d 549, 550 [2003]) the Court of Appeals held that observation of packaging commonly used to package cocaine provided “reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant.” Similarly, in this case, the officer’s observation of the defendant with packaging commonly used to package narcotics not only justified asking pointed questions but also provided reasonable suspicion to stop him.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fleury
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The People correctly contend that the observations of the police established probable cause for the defendant’s arrest prior to the search of his person (see People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549, 550 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Lionel Alvarez, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 10, 2003.
795 N.E.2d 13
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Emil Bricker and John M. Castellano of counsel), for appellant., Ronna Gordon-Galchus, Bayside, for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence denied.

The hearing court’s undisturbed findings that the police officer observed the tops of folded white pieces of paper wrapped in black plastic in the defendant’s left hand, and that the officer knew from his experience that such papers were used to package cocaine, provided reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. As the suppression court found and the Appellate Division left undisturbed, upon the approach of the officer the defendant turned his body and attempted to hide the papers in his pants. This elevated the level of suspicion to probable cause.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.