People v. Leung, 497 N.E.2d 687 (NY 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Leung, 497 N.E.2d 687 (NY 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
290 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Allen (nyappdiv, 2020-11-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Allen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
A detention or a pursuit of a person for the purpose of detention amounts to a level three encounter and must be supported by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed ( see People v Moore , 6 NY3d 496, 498-499 [2006]; People v Martinez , 80 NY2d 444, 447 [1992]; People v Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gibson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The credible evidence established that the circumstances were sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that a drug transaction was about to occur and the police officers' actions in getting out of their unmarked vehicle and displaying their shields rose only to a level one approach to request information requiring an objective credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality ( see People v Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; People v Grunwald , 29 AD3d 33, 38-40 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 848 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bilal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
We must not forget that De Bour and its progeny stand, in its general and indeed specific sense, for the principle that police action must be justified from its inception, and at any subsequent juncture, by a sufficient factual predicate even when the police are confronted with an "urgent situation of the firing of a gun and a possible shooting victim" ( People v Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; People v Howard , 50 NY2d 583, 592 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1023 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vargas v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
New York courts have held that even where “the actions of the police officer fell short of the level of intrusion constituting an arrest [because] defendant was not placed in restraint[s] or told he was under arrest,” the police officer’s “observance of the [suspected criminal activity] gave [rise] to a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime which would justify the initial stop and detention.” (Jones, 172 AD2d at 266-267 .) Further, the Court of Appeals has held that “judicial review of the legality of police conduct must weigh the interference such conduct entai…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Furthermore, after the officers seized defendant and recovered the weapon, they had probable cause to arrest him (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736-737 [1986]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Furthermore, after the officers seized defendant and recovered the weapon, they had probable cause to arrest him (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736-737 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reyes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Defendant met a detailed radioed description of a man with a handgun, and his flight from a lawful common-law inquiry created reasonable suspicion of criminality justifying pursuit (People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 448 [1992]; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Abrams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Consequently, when the officers seized defendant, they had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736-737 [1986]; De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223 ; People v Lowe, 237 AD2d 903, 904 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Abrams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Consequently, when the officers seized defendant, they had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736-737 [1986]; De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223 ; People v Lowe, 237 AD2d 903, 904 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Anderson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Moreover, the discovery of the drugs constituted probable cause for the defendant’s arrest (cf. People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 737 [1986]; People v Green, 81 AD2d 621, 623 [1981]), and the lawful custodial arrest justified the contemporaneous search of the defendant (see New York v Belton, 453 US 454, 457 [1981]; Chimel v California, 395 US 752 [1969]; People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49, 52 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Norman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the recovery of the gun discarded during his flight was lawful inasmuch as the officer’s pursuit and detention of defendant were lawful (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; Sloan, 178 AD2d 624 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Upon being asked for identification, defendant knocked down one of the officers and fled from the scene, thus justifying a greater level of police intrusion, which eventually led to his arrest (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; Rivera, 175 AD2d at 79-80 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Aliya M.
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. · 2006 · confidence medium
The decision in People v. DeBour ( 40 NY2d 210 [1976]), in which the Court of Appeals set out a four-tiered framework representing the gradation of permissible warrantless police encounters with citizens in a public place and which correlates the degree of the officer's objectively credible belief with the permissible scope of the officer's intervention, is applicable to this case ( People v. Hollman , 79 NY2d 181, 195 [1992]; People v. Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; People v. McIntosh , 96 NY2d 521, 526 [2001]; People v. Pines , 99 NY2d 525, 527 [2002]; People v. Moore , 6 NY3d 496, 498-499…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
During that pursuit, the officer observed defendant remove a gun from his pocket, warranting defendant’s eventual arrest for criminal possession of a weapon (see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 737 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tyheem S.
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. · 2005 · confidence medium
The decision in People v De Bour ( 40 NY2d 210 [1976]), in which the Court of Appeals set out [*5]a four-tiered method representing the gradiation of permissible police encounters with citizens in a public place and which correlates the degree of the officer's objectively credible belief with the permissible scope of his or her intervention, is applicable to this case ( People v Hollman , 79 NY2d 181, 195 [1992]; People v Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; People v McIntosh , 96 NY2d 521, 526 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Tyheem S.
N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. · 2005 · confidence medium
The decision in People v De Bour ( 40 NY2d 210 [1976]), in which the Court of Appeals set out a four-tiered method representing the gradation of permissible police encounters with citizens in a public place and which correlates the degree of the officer’s objectively credible belief with the permissible scope of his or her intervention, is applicable to this case (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 195 [1992]; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521, 526 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Richards
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Considering that several officers noted that the defendant resembled a composite sketch and was walking in the vicinity of the two crime scenes, looking around nervously, the officers had the right to pursue and detain him after he fled upon being approached by an officer (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 526-527 [2002]; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]; People v Green, 10 AD3d 664 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · confidence medium
Finally, given that the officers’ pursuit of defendant to effect the arrest was lawful, the recovery of the marihuana and cocaine discarded by defendant during that pursuit was also lawful (see, People v Leung, supra, at 736).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · confidence medium
Because Byrd’s initial approach, inquiry and subsequent pursuit of defendant was appropriate and lawful police conduct, County Court’s denial of the motion to suppress the drug seizure was proper (see, People v Leung, supra, at 736).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lowe
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · confidence medium
When he saw defendant drop the gun, he had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal possession of a weapon (see, People v Leung, supra, at 737), and the prescription bottle and crack cocaine were discovered during a lawful search of defendant as incident to a lawful arrest (see, People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49, 52 , rearg denied 56 NY2d 646 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hampton
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · confidence medium
Finally, the plastic bag, noted to be "weighted down”, could have contained any number of heavy articles and does not, by its nature, constitute a container indicative of contraband (compare, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 735 [defendant seen passing brown envelope resembling "three dollar bags” used in drug transactions]). "[I]nnocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand” (People v De Bour, supra, at 216).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Terry
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · confidence medium
Because defendant discarded the plastic bag during a lawful pursuit, subsequent retrieval of it by the police did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Leung, supra, at 736; People v Dukes, 184 AD2d 522 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fields
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · confidence medium
Nicholas Avenue could be said to have been unjustified, defendant’s act of discarding the bag at 178th Street and Broadway could hardly be characterized as a spontaneous response thereto, but rather was attenuated from the prior event (People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 403-404 ; People v Leung, supra, 68 NY2d, at 736-737).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martinez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Finally, contrary to the majority’s contention, the defendant’s handing of the box to Palmer did not constitute an abandonment of the box since the hearing testimony clearly established that the box was discarded as " 'a spontaneous reaction to a sudden and unexpected confrontation with the police’ ” (People v Bennett, supra, at 517 , quoting People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 404, cert denied 444 US 969), and the defendant did not "purposefully divest himself of possession of the” box (People v Howard, 50 NY2d, at 593, supra; cf., People v Leung, supra, at 736-737; People v Boodle, 47 NY…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Weldon
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · confidence medium
In any event, even if the requisite predicate of suspicion was lacking, an affirmance would nevertheless be required since the defendant’s brandishing of a hand gun at the officers constituted a calculated, independent criminal act, unrelated to the police activity which preceded it (see, e.g., People v Leung, supra, at 737; People v Wilkerson, 64 NY2d 749, 750-751 ; People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 404 , cert denied 444 US 969 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thomas
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · confidence medium
Because the bicycle and the bag were abandoned by defendant in response to legal police activity, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress those items (see, People v Leung, supra, at 736-737; People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398 , cert denied 444 US 969 ; People v Buckley, 147 AD2d 898 , affd 75 NY2d 843 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · confidence medium
In view of our holding that the police conduct in approaching and pursuing the defendant was lawful, the recovery of the plastic box and its contents and the defendant’s jacket, all discarded during his flight, was also legally permissible (see, People v Leung, supra, at 736).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cleveland
NY · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Under the four-tiered framework set out in De Bour , pursuit of a fleeing suspect constitutes a level three detention, for which the police must "have a reasonable suspicion that defendant has committed or is about to commit a crime" ( People v Martinez , 80 NY2d 444, 446 [1992]; see id. at 447 , citing People v Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cleveland (2×)
NY · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Under the four-tiered framework set out in De Bour , pursuit of a fleeing suspect constitutes a level three detention, for which the police must "have a reasonable suspicion that defendant has committed or is about to commit a crime" ( People v Martinez , 80 NY2d 444, 446 [1992]; see id. at 447 , citing People v Leung , 68 NY2d 734, 736 [1986]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jennings
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“Flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit” (People v Nunez, 111 AD3d at 855-856 ; see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 [1986]; People v Carmichael, 92 AD3d 687, 688 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Wynn
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
The officers observed “specific circumstances” which, coupled with the defendant’s flight, gave them reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant (People v Sierra, 83 NY2d 928, 929 [1994]; see People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 [1986]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Nichols
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well settled “that the police may forcibly stop or pursue an individual if they have information which, although not yielding the probable cause necessary to justify an arrest, provides them with a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” (People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447 ; see, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 ; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Mitchell
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
In evaluating the police conduct it has been stated that the "touchstone in each case is the reasonableness of the police conduct in light of the particular circumstances giving rise to the police intrusion at each stage” (People v Cartagena, 189 AD2d 67, 70 ; see, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ; People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bora
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
(People v De Bour, supra, at 223; see, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902 , revg on dissenting opn 56 AD2d 80, 84 .) Thereafter, defendant’s flight, when combined with the detailed description, which he alone fit, escalated the initial common-law right of inquiry to the next level set forth in De Bour (supra), a reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing, had committed or was about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, justifying the police pursuit (see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ; People v Jones, 69 NY2d 853 ; People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Lindsay
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Once they observed conduct indicative of an illegal dice game (see, Penal Law § 240.35 [2]; Matter of Curtis H., 216 AD2d 173, 174 ; People v King, 102 AD2d 710, 710-711 , affd 65 NY2d 702 ; see generally, Penal Law § 225.30 [2]), the officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed (see, People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1057-1058 , citing People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
The “[p]olice may forcibly stop or pursue an individual if they have information which, although not yielding the probable cause necessary to justify an arrest, provides them with a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” (People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ; People v De Bour, supra).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Jimenez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
We agree with the suppression court that the officer’s conduct was reasonable and did not constitute an illegal pursuit of defendant (see generally, People v Hill, 127 AD2d 144, 145-149 , lv granted 69 NY2d 888 , appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 795 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ; People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583 , cert denied 449 US 1023 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Malsh
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
With respect to the former, Messere’s firsthand observation of the exchange of a glassine envelope for currency, an act which is the hallmark of an illicit exchange, in an area known for its high incidence of narcotic activity coupled with defendant’s flight belie his argument that police lacked probable cause for the arrest thus necessitating suppression of the cocaine as the fruit of an illegal arrest (see, People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Grajales
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
And apart from the fact that I find O’Donnell’s testimony that he observed the outline of a gun in the defendant’s coat pocket at night from a moving vehicle at a distance of 60 feet to be tailored to meet constitutional objections (see, e.g., People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ; see also, People v Cruz, 158 AD2d 293 ), it is my view that, absent any indicia of criminal activity, an officer’s "50/50” but otherwise unexplainable belief that a gun is in a person’s pocket is an insufficient predicate to forcibly detain that person or to chase him when he exercised his constitutional ri…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Pruitt
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under these circumstances, the defendant’s act of throwing the paper bag he was carrying down the stairs in response to this legal intrusion was not "a spontaneous reaction to a sudden and unexpected confrontation with the police” but rather "an independent act involving a calculated risk” (People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 404, cert denied 444 US 969 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Elliot
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
The pursuit of a person who flees after first being approached by the police for purposes of an investigatory inquiry, as here, is justified only when reasonable suspicion exists that the person has committed or was about to commit a crime (People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583, 592 , cert denied 449 US 1023 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 ; People v Terracciano, 135 AD2d 849 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bloomfield
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
"Property which has in fact been abandoned is outside the protection of constitutional provisions” (People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583, 592 , supra; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Terracciano
N.Y. App. Div. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
The pursuit of a person who flees after first being approached by the police for purposes of an investigative inquiry is justified only when reasonable suspicion exists that the person has committed or was about to commit a crime (People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583, 592 , cert denied 449 US 1023 ; see also, People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734, 736 ).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Girven Leung
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 10, 1986.
497 N.E.2d 687
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Abraham L. Clott and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Emil Bricker of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 451 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

While on plain-clothes duty and patrolling, in an unmarked car, an area of Queens known for its narcotics activity, Police Officers Leo, Harvey and DeLavan observed defendant and another man in conversation and saw defendant pass his companion a three- by five-inch brown envelope which appeared to resemble “three dollar bags” used in drug transactions. Officers Leo and Harvey left the unmarked car and identified themselves as police officers. Defendant immediately fled, with Officers Leo and Harvey in pursuit. As he ran, defendant discarded a hat, and then threw a black object under some bushes. Defendant stopped running and was apprehended by Officer Leo at a spot approximately five houses from where the pursuit began. The black object thrown by defendant was recovered from nearby bushes and was found to be a loaded, operable nine-millimeter pistol. On appeal, defendant contends that the initial police action was an investiga[*736] tory stop, and that neither police observation of the passing of a manila envelope, nor defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to leave without answering questions, provided police with a reasonable suspicion that he had committed, or was about to commit, a crime.

In People v De Bour, we held that judicial review of the legality of police conduct must weigh the interference such conduct entails against the precipitating and attendant conditions known to the police as the encounter unfolds (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223; see also, People v Stewart, 41 NY2d 65). We set forth a synopsis, representing the gradation of permissible police authority in encounters with citizens in public places, that correlated the degree of the officer’s objectively credible belief with the permissible scope of his intervention (People v De Bour, supra, p 223). The present case presents a situation wherein the level of police intrusion was an appropriate response to the observations and beliefs of the officers involved.

Although in exiting their unmarked car and identifying themselves as policemen the officers may have intended to seek explanatory information from defendant, or to detain him, there is no evidence that, prior to defendant’s flight, the police did anything more than approach him. The fact that defendant passed what appeared to be a "three dollar bag” in a neighborhood known for its drug activity constitutes, at the least, the "objective credible reason” necessary to support the intrusion attendant to a police approach of a citizen (see, id.). When coupled with defendant’s immediate flight upon the officer’s approach, the passing of the manila envelope in this narcotics-prone neighborhood establishes the necessary reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, or was about to commit a crime, such that pursuit by the officers was justified (see, People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583, 592; People v Corrado, 22 NY2d 308, 313-314; compare, People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 604 [glossine envelopes]).

Given that the initial approach and the subsequent pursuit and detention of defendant constituted legitimate, justifiable police conduct, manifestly the recovery of the gun discarded during flight was also lawful. The weapon was produced and thrown by defendant himself after he had already discarded his hat (compare, People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402). Defendant’s argument that the People failed to prove his intent to abandon the gun is inapposite, as such analysis is employed only in situations involving an apparently discarded container[*737] which is opened by police without consent, searched and found to contain contraband (see, e.g., People v Howard, supra; People v Baldwin, 25 NY2d 66; compare, People v Boodle, supra). Thus, it cannot be said that defendant’s attempt to rid himself of the gun was the direct result of "precipitous and unlawful police action” (People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402-404, supra; People v Wilkerson, 64 NY2d 749, 750-751). The lawful discovery of the gun during defendant’s detention by police constituted probable cause to arrest him on the weapons charge.

Defendant’s additional contentions, that prosecutorial misconduct and an erroneous supplemental charge require reversal, are without merit. It suffices to note that the Trial Judge’s instruction on "possession” was an accurate statement of the law, albeit confusing, and merely stated that, if the defendant threw a black object, he had possession of that black object within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (8).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., 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.