71 N.Y.2d at 870 Weighing intrusion against circumstances of police conduct20 citing casesofficer’s independent observation corroborated information received as to specific description of suspect and suspect’s exact location
- People v. Torres, 2024 NY Slip Op 04442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).publishedIn People v Salaman ( 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]), the Court of Appeals found the frisk lawful where, at night, the officer frisked the defendant after receiving an anonymous report of a man with a gun and the officer's "independent observati…
- People v. Shakeem B., 55 Misc. 3d 47 (N.Y. App. Term. 2017).publishedThe Court of Appeals has held that a police officer is duty bound to investigate any credible report of a person with a gun (see People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]).
- People v. Burnett, 126 A.D.3d 1491 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).published Rather, the sole justification proffered for the officer’s conduct was that he feared for his safety (see People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]).
- The People v. Eric R. Johnson, The People v. John A. DiSalvo, The People v. Costandino Argyris, 27 N.E.3d 425 (N.Y. 2014).published In the past, we interpreted the State Constitution to permit a level-three stop based on a hearsay report that did not meet both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli standard for reliability (see People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]; Landy,…
- In re Darryl C., 98 A.D.3d 69 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012).published It is well settled that any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion entailed against the precipitating and attending circumstances out of which the encounter arose (see People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869,…
- People v. Omowale, 83 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published“Any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion it entails against the precipitating and attending circumstances” out of which the encounter arose (People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]; People v De…
- People v. Stephens, 47 A.D.3d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).publishedThe law is well settled that any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion entailed against the precipitating and attending circumstances out of which the encounter arose (People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869…
- People v. Packer, 49 A.D.3d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).publishedAny inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must begin with a weighing of the degree of intrusion entailed against the precipitating and attending circumstances out of which the encounter arose (People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869, 870 [198…
- People v. Driscoll, 13 Misc. 3d 197 (2006).publishedThe fact that a person matches the race, gender, clothing and location of an individual with a gun permits police officers not only to give commands to the defendant but also to frisk for weapons where the officer is “justified in believin…
- People v. Lomiller, 30 A.D.3d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006).publishedIn the decision at issue, the hearing court, almost exclusively crediting the testimony of defendant, found that the two New York City police detectives’ initial approach of defendant, who the court found to be “unquestionably ... a person…
Show 7 more citing cases
- People v. Hensen, 21 A.D.3d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005).publishedIt is well established that any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion which it entails against the precipitating and attending circumstances out of which the encounter arose (People v Salaman, 71 N…
- People v. Anderson, 17 A.D.3d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005).publishedIndeed, it is well settled that any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion which it entails against the precipitating and attending circumstances out of which the encounter arose (People v Salaman,…
- People v. Alvarez, 308 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).publishedAny inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weight the degree of intrusion which it entails against the precipitat ing and attending circumstances out of which the encounter arose (People v Salaman, 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]; Peopl…
- People v. Celaj, 306 A.D.2d 71 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).published(officer’s independent observation corroborated information received as to specific description of suspect and suspect’s exact location)
- In re David D., 190 Misc. 2d 327 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2001).publishedIn People v Salaman ( 71 NY2d 869, 870 [1988]) the Court of Appeals began its analysis of whether a frisk of an individual based upon an anonymous tip 2 would provide a “sufficient predicate for [an] officer’s interference with defendant,”…
- Matter of Tyheem S., 2005 NY Slip Op 25375 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. 2005).publishedThe pistol fires long rifle ammunition and the gun had a loaded magazine inserted so that the gun could fire rounds. [FN3] Respondent was then arrested for the crimes charged in this petition and his three companions were arrested for the…
- In re Tyheem S., 10 Misc. 3d 177 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2005).publishedThe pistol fires long rifle ammunition and the gun had a loaded magazine inserted so that the gun could fire rounds. 3 Respondent was then arrested for the crimes charged in this petition and his three companions were arrested for the offe…
71 N.Y.2d at 869 “justified in believing that the suspect is armed.”0 citing cases
Other citing cases
- Matter of Ernest H., 2006 NY Slip Op 50159(U) (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. 2006).unpublished
- People v. Hollins, 248 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998).published
- People v. Curry, 213 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1995).published
- People v. Rich, 206 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994).published
- People v. Adams, 217 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1995).published
- In re Oniel W., 146 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1989).published
v.
Raymond Salaman
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant appeals from his conviction, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, arguing that the arresting officer’s frisk which produced a .22 caliber revolver was not justified as a matter of law. At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that, acting on an anonymous tip of a black male with a gun at South Fifth Avenue and West Third Street in the City of Mount Vernon wearing a long beige overcoat and a maroon sweatshirt with a hood on it, he reached the intersection and observed approximately 25 people milling about, but only defendant matched the description given. He approached defendant and ordered him to put his hands on the hood of the car and conducted a pat down of defendant’s outer clothing.
Any inquiry into the propriety of police conduct must weigh the degree of intrusion it entails against the precipitating and attending circumstances (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223), and where the officer is justified in believing that the suspect is armed, a frisk for weapons is permissible (Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 27). The officer was of course duty bound to investigate the report (People v Landy, 59 NY2d 369, 374; People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 270), and his independent observations corroborated the information received, both as to the specific description of the suspect and as to the exact location where he could be found (People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832). It was night in what the officer testified was a high-crime area (see, People v Bronston, 68 NY2d 880, 881; People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902). He further testified that he acted for his own safety and for that of others in the vicinity. Under these circumstances, where the officer approached defendant without any weapon drawn and conducted only a pat down of defendant’s outer clothing, it cannot be said that the degree of intrusion employed was unreasonable. Inasmuch as there is evidence in the record to support the hearing court’s finding, undisturbed by the Appellate Division, that there was a sufficient predicate for the officer’s interference with defen[*871] dant to secure the safety of the officer and others in the intersection, our review process is at an end (People v Jones, 69 NY2d 853, 855).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.