People v. Douglas, 227 A.D.2d 130 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Douglas, 227 A.D.2d 130 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Castillo
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2002 · confidence medium
(See People v Douglas, 227 AD2d at 130 [when officers approached to inquire, defendant’s rapid retreat from police, refusal to stop, and hand movements near waistband provided reasonable suspicion]; People v Flores, 226 AD2d 181 [1st Dept 1996] [common-law right to inquire escalated to reasonable suspicion by defendant’s efforts to conceal waistband bulge]; People v Brown, 216 AD2d at 3 [defendant’s throwing motion toward his mouth elevated common-law right to inquiry for drug sale to reasonable suspicion].) Moreover, the search of defendant’s bag was lawful because defendant abandoned…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mamorella v. Derkasch
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · confidence medium
Steering Comm. v Cohen, Weiss & Simon, supra, at 131; see also, Atkinson v Sinclair Ref.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Niezbecki v. Eisner & Hubbard, P. C.
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 1999 · confidence medium
Steering Comm. v Cohen, Weiss & Simon, 227 AD2d 130, 131 [1st Dept 1996]; see, Best v Rome, 858 F Supp 271, 274-275 [D Mass 1994].) While plaintiffs attempt to frame his complaint in State law is not dispositive of the preemption question (id.), neither does Federal law preempt “every dispute concerning employment, or tangentially involving a provision of a collective-bargaining agreement.” (Allis-Chalmers Corp. v Lueck, 471 US, supra, at 211 .) Preemption is required “when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between …
discussed Cited "see" In re Jakiyo L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, when the appellant turned around and reached for his waistband, the arresting officer — mindful of his own safety and that of the public — acted appropriately by raising the appellant’s shirt in the waistband area, insmuch as it is “common knowledge * * * that a handgun is often carried in the waistband” (People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 ; see, People v Douglas, 227 AD2d 130 ; People v Cartagena, 189 AD2d 67, 70-72 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
John Douglas, Also Known as Earl Garvin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 2, 1996.
227 A.D.2d 130
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered July 7, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied. The police received a radio transmission which provided information of a black man wearing specified clothing with a gun in his waistband. The officers arrived at that "drug prone” location within minutes, and observed defendant within a block of the location, wearing clothing that precisely matched the description. This provided the police with a common-law right to inquire. Thereafter, defendant’s actions in rapidly walking across the street when the police exited their marked patrol car, refusing to stop when the police ordered him to do so, and moving his hands near his waistband provided the police with reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him (People v Bora, 191 AD2d 384, affd 83 NY2d 531). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the officer’s request for his name and address after the patdown revealed he was unarmed, which request led to the discovery that defendant was secreting crack vials in his mouth, did not constitute a post-frisk investigation but was merely a request for routine information which was minimally intrusive under the circumstances (compare, People v Chisholm, 180 AD2d 744, lv denied 79 NY2d 1047; People v Johnson, 130 AD2d 685).

The court did not, as defendant claims on appeal, deny his request to represent himself at trial. On the contrary, the court agreed to hear his request to proceed pro se, but defendant abandoned that request (see, People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.