People v. Flemming, 308 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
People v. Flemming, 308 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Amos (nyappdiv, 2016-06-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Amos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Because the officers had probable cause to seize the cocaine and arrest defendant when they observed the baggie in defendant’s possession (see People v Smith, 134 AD3d 1568, 1568 [2015]), defendant’s act of discarding the baggie and its contents during the subsequent foot chase was not in response to illegal police conduct (see People v Flemming, 308 AD2d 385, 386 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 571 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Amos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Because the officers had probable cause to seize the cocaine and arrest defendant when they observed the baggie in defendant’s possession (see People v Smith, 134 AD3d 1568, 1568 [2015]), defendant’s act of discarding the baggie and its contents during the subsequent foot chase was not in response to illegal police conduct (see People v Flemming, 308 AD2d 385, 386 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 571 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Woodrow Flemming
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 23, 2003.
308 A.D.2d 385
2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Mogulescu, J., at hear[*386] ing; Denis Boyle, J., at plea and sentence), rendered April 11, 2001, convicting defendant of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police had probable cause to arrest defendant because he fit the description of a person who had sold drugs to an undercover officer moments before. This description was sufficiently specific given the spatial and temporal factors and the absence of anyone else who could meet the description (see e.g. People v Williams, 281 AD2d 569 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 836 [2001]). In any event, based on this description, the police did nothing more intrusive than approach defendant, who immediately discarded a quantity of glassine envelopes. This was a voluntary act of abandonment that was not in response to any unlawful police conduct and which independently provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.