From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 19, 2006
25 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Summary

In Chin, however, unlike the instant case, the transaction took place in the early morning hours on a deserted street in a drug-prone location and the police recognized what they believed to be a drug transaction.

Summary of this case from People v. Giles

Opinion

7622.

January 19, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered March 30, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Sean Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ., concur.


The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. In the early morning hours, on a deserted street in a drug-prone location, the police observed activity they recognized as a possible drug transaction, in which defendant made hand-to-hand contact with another individual who immediately placed his hand in his pocket. Defendant also exhibited nervous behavior upon approach of the police. The totality of these observations gave rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and justified a common-law inquiry ( see e.g. People v. Hernandez, 3 AD3d 325, lv denied 2 NY3d 741). When, in addition, the police observed a bulge under defendant's outer clothing at his waistband, they were justified in conducting, at least, a limited patdown ( see e.g. People v. Chin, 192 AD2d 413, lv denied 81 NY2d 1071). When defendant resisted the patdown by struggling and attempting to flee, and when in the course of the struggle a package of cocaine immediately became dislodged, the officers' plain view observation of contraband justified defendant's arrest, which led to the lawful recovery of additional contraband ( see People v. Bothwell, 261 AD2d 232, lv denied 93 NY2d 1026).


Summaries of

People v. Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 19, 2006
25 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

In Chin, however, unlike the instant case, the transaction took place in the early morning hours on a deserted street in a drug-prone location and the police recognized what they believed to be a drug transaction.

Summary of this case from People v. Giles
Case details for

People v. Chin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALAN CHIN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 19, 2006

Citations

25 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 316
808 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

People v. Mercado

e v. Jones , 90 N.Y.2d 835, 837, 660 N.Y.S.2d 549, 683 N.E.2d 14 [1997] ; People v. Williams , 69 A.D.3d 663,…

People v. Loper

The detective's observations supported only a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” ( People…