From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 5, 2003
306 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

holding that group of nine or ten people descending staircase in drug-prone TAP building provided objective credible reason to ask defendant whether he lived there, “ ‘which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry’ ” (quoting People v. Tinort, 272 A.D.2d 206, 709 N.Y.S.2d 511, 511 (1st Dep't 2000))

Summary of this case from Ligon v. City of N.Y.

Opinion

1309

June 5, 2003.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered May 31, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Meredith Boylan, for respondent.

Hung G. Ta, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach, Gonzalez, JJ.

Deceased June 1, 2003.


The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Upon encountering a group of nine or ten persons including defendant descending a staircase from the second floor to the lobby in a drug-prone "trespass affidavit" building, the police had an "`objective credible reason' to ask defendant whether he lived there, which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry" (People v. Tinort, 272 A.D.2d 206, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 872). Defendant's claim that he was subjected to a level two inquiry is not supported by the record. The police merely asked defendant and the others to continue descending into the lobby, which is what they were already doing. When they reached the lobby, the police promptly conducted a level one inquiry of the members of this large group in an orderly fashion that did not constitute a seizure or detention of any kind. When defendant stated that he did not live in the building, the officer asked him, in effect, to state his purpose for being there, but defendant provided no information. This provided the officer with probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass (see People v. Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 201,lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 742), resulting in the recovery of drugs.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 5, 2003
306 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

holding that group of nine or ten people descending staircase in drug-prone TAP building provided objective credible reason to ask defendant whether he lived there, “ ‘which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry’ ” (quoting People v. Tinort, 272 A.D.2d 206, 709 N.Y.S.2d 511, 511 (1st Dep't 2000))

Summary of this case from Ligon v. City of N.Y.

holding that group of nine or ten people descending staircase in drug-prone TAP building provided objective credible reason to ask defendant whether he lived there, "'which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry'" (quoting People v. Tinort, 709 N.Y.S.2d 511, 511 (1st Dep't 2000))

Summary of this case from Ligon v. City of N.Y.
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GLENWOOD ANDERSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 5, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 676

Citing Cases

People v. Wannamaker

While this conduct may have had innocent explanations, an officer also believed defendant looked familiar,…

People v. Quinones

I note in passing that other recent decisions likewise approve police inquiries under circumstances scarcely,…