Summary
In Brooks, the court affirmed that where a gun is involved in the crime for which the suspect is validly stopped and frisked, the police officers "are not limited to a patdown of the suspect's person and may examine personal items capable of concealing a weapon within the suspect's grabbable reach `as an incident to an inquiry upon grounds of safety and precaution'" (People v Brooks, supra, at 1023, quoting from People v Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65, 69; see also, People v Jones, 138 A.D.2d 746; People v Covert, 134 A.D.2d 444; People v Belk, 100 A.D.2d 908).
Summary of this case from People v. WhiteOpinion
Decided September 12, 1985
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Daniel F. McMahon, J.
Carol A. Zeldin and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Seth L. Marvin of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Police officers, who as in the present case have received a report that a person answering defendant's description was seen waving a gun on the street, and who thereafter conduct a valid stop and frisk, are not limited to a patdown of the suspect's person and may examine personal items capable of concealing a weapon within the suspect's grabbable reach "as an incident to an inquiry upon grounds of safety and precaution" ( People v Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65, 69; see, People v Davis, 64 N.Y.2d 1143; People v Moore, 32 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 414 U.S. 1011; People v Tratch, 104 A.D.2d 503). The factual findings made at the Appellate Division, which have support in the record and thus may not be disturbed by this court ( People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470), establish that grounds for a stop and frisk existed ( e.g., People v McLaurin, 43 N.Y.2d 902) and that the parameters of a permissible frisk were not exceeded ( People v Pugach, supra; People v Tratch, supra; United States v Sims, 450 F.2d 261, 263; Commonwealth v Anderson, 366 Mass. 394, 318 N.E.2d 834). People v Tucker ( 44 N.Y.2d 941, revg on dissent at 58 A.D.2d 673, 674) involved "a full-blown search * * * [conducted] on the pretext of a stop and frisk" and is, therefore, distinguishable on its facts.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.