People v. Morrison, 161 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Morrison, 161 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Jennings (nyappdiv, 2022-02-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jennings
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Furthermore, we conclude that the People did not have "reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime" to justify their seizure of the vehicle inasmuch as the seizure was based only on defendant's presence in a vehicle parked in a high crime area, and on the police officers' observation of furtive movements inside the vehicle ( Layou , 71 AD3d at 1383 ; see People v Williams , 191 AD3d 1495, 1498 [4th Dept 2021]; People v Morrison , 161 AD2d 608, 609 [2d Dept 1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Accordingly, since the seizure of the defendant was unlawful, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the fruits of the subsequent search (see People v Morrison, 161 AD2d 608, 609 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thomas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
We decline to adopt this approach. 3 In concluding that the police approach to defendant in his already-stationary car constituted a level III stop, Justice Tom misplaces reliance on cases that, unlike this appeal, were concerned with the grounds required to justify the stop of a moving vehicle (see People v May, 81 NY2d 725, 727 [1992] [as defendant’s car “pulled away,” the police “ordered the car to pull over”]; Sobotker, 43 NY2d at 562 [the police used sirens and lights to force a car “to pull over and stop at the curb”]; Ingle, 36 NY2d at 415 [defendant, while “operating hi…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Stock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
That fact alone, which is in effect no more than a “[m]ere ‘hunch’ or ‘gut reaction,’ ” is insufficient to create the requisite reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot (People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 564 [1978]; see People v Morrison, 161 AD2d 608, 608-609 [1990]; People v Spicer, 105 AD2d 1100 [1984]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Gregory Morrison
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 7, 1990.
161 A.D.2d 608
1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered February 25, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Berkowitz, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is granted, the indictment is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

At approximately 4:50 a.m. on March 7, 1987, police officers on routine patrol in a high-crime area noticed the defendant’s vehicle parked in a parking lot with the motor running and the vehicle’s nose abutting a building. Two males were sitting in the front seats of the car. The officers pulled in behind the vehicle as it was attempting to leave and they exited their patrol car. One officer approached the driver’s door and the other walked up to the passenger’s door. The defendant was asked to shut the motor off and to produce his license, registration and insurance card. In attempting to comply with this request, the defendant leaned over, opened the glove compartment, and a glass pipe and a sifting screen fell to the floor. The defendant and the other occupant were ordered out of the car and one of the officers retrieved the contraband. Upon doing so, a weapon was observed under the passenger’s seat and both individuals were placed under arrest.

The actions taken by the police clearly amounted to a stop and a seizure of both the car and its occupants (see, People v [*609] Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559; People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106; People v Brown, 112 AD2d 945) and therefore required some reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had been, was about to or was presently occurring (see, People v Brown, supra; People v Sobotker, supra). There was no such indication here and the fact that this was a high-crime area, in the absence of any other articulable justification for the stop, will not suffice to attribute to the officers’ actions the appropriate level of reasonable suspicion needed to make this seizure lawful (see, People v Bronston, 68 NY2d 880). As the seizure of the defendant and his vehicle was unlawful, the fruits of the search must be suppressed. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.