People v. Sanchez, 8 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Sanchez, 8 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Francis (nyappdiv, 2007-02-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Francis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The police officer who approached the defendant in an unmarked patrol car as the defendant was walking on a public street/ sidewalk had a common-law right of inquiry to question the defendant, as he observed the defendant placing a leafy, green substance into a paper wrapper, which substance, based upon his training and experience, the officer concluded was marihuana (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]; People v Febus, 11 AD3d 554, 555-556 [2004]; People v Sanchez, 8 AD3d 504, 505 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tyheem S.
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. · 2005 · confidence medium
Under the second tier of De Bour , the common-law right of inquiry, the police may stop an individual without the use of force for the purpose of questioning that person where there is a founded suspicion of criminal activity ( People v De Bour at 215 ; People v Hollman at 191 ; People v Spencer , 84 NY2d 749, 753 [1995], cert denied 516 US 905 [1995]; People v Battaglia , 86 NY2d [*6]755, 758 [1995]; People v Giles , 223 AD2d 39, 40-41 [1996]; People v Sanchez , 8 AD3d 504, 505 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 711 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Tyheem S.
N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. · 2005 · confidence medium
Under the second tier of De Bour , the common-law right of inquiry, the police may stop an individual without the use of force for the purpose of questioning that person where there is a founded suspicion of criminal activity (People v De Bour at 215 ; People v Hollman at 191 ; People v Spencer, 84 NY2d 749, 753 [1995], cert denied 516 US 905 [1995]; People v Battaglia, 86 NY2d 755, 758 [1995]; People v Giles, 223 AD2d 39, 40-41 [1996]; People v Sanchez, 8 AD3d 504, 505 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 711 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jose Sanchez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 14, 2004.
8 A.D.3d 504
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8461
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered March 24, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, bribery in the first degree, and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

[*505] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the police detective who approached him had a common-law right of inquiry to question the defendant based upon his observations of the defendant rolling and licking a three- or four-inch long brown cigar wrapper which, based on his training and experience, the detective concluded was a marijuana cigar (see Penal Law § 221.10 [1]; People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521, 525 [2001]; People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 181-184 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]; Matter of Javier N., 226 AD2d 178 [1996]; People v Barnes, 149 AD2d 359, 360 [1989]). This common-law right of inquiry escalated to probable cause to arrest when the detective observed the defendant in possession of a knife, and the defendant began struggling with the detective who attempted to secure it (see Matter of Camille H., 215 AD2d 143 [1995]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized during the ensuing search.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.