28 Cited authorities

People v. De Bour
40 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 2,272 times 6 Legal Analyses
In People v. LaPene, 352 N.E.2d 562 (N.Y. 1976), the New York Court of Appeals laid out a sliding scale of justifiable police intrusion, short of probable cause to arrest, which specified three distinct levels of intrusion correlating the allowable intensity of police conduct to the nature and weight of the facts precipitating the intrusion.
People v. Hollman
79 N.Y.2d 181 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 781 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that reasonable suspicion was required before narcotics officers could approach a passenger in a bus terminal and ask for permission to search the person's bag
People v. Bigelow
66 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 854 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting the "good-faith exception" to the warrant requirement
People v. Martinez
80 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 410 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Martinez, we acknowledged that the “[d]efendant had a right to refuse to respond to a police inquiry and his flight when the officers approached could not, in and of itself, create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (id. at 448, 591 N.Y.S.2d 823, 606 N.E.2d 951 [citation omitted]).
People v. Cantor
36 N.Y.2d 106 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 701 times
Stating that officers are permitted to forcibly stop and detain a person for questioning where the officer has reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime
People v. Concepcion
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5110 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 225 times
Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"
People v. Moore
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1249 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 255 times
Beginning analysis with the "gunpoint stop" where officers acting on an anonymous tip had arrived at the scene and approached the defendant "who began to walk away"
Sgro v. United States
287 U.S. 206 (1932) Cited 640 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a twenty-one-day delay that elapsed between an officer’s application for a search warrant and the officer’s execution of the search warrant nullified probable cause
People v. Harrison
57 N.Y.2d 470 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 265 times
In People v. Harrison (57 N.Y.2d 470, 476), the Court of Appeals held that: "Confining the occupants to the car, even temporarily, is at least equivalent to a stop.
People v. Boodle
47 N.Y.2d 398 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 292 times
Concluding that a detective's order to "[j]ust keep your hands where I can see them" was a seizure because the defendant's "freedom of movement was significantly restrained"

The People, Respondent,v.Joel Joseph, Appellant.

28 Cited authorities

Holding that reasonable suspicion was required before narcotics officers could approach a passenger in a bus terminal and ask for permission to search the person's bag

Rejecting the "good-faith exception" to the warrant requirement

In Martinez, we acknowledged that the “[d]efendant had a right to refuse to respond to a police inquiry and his flight when the officers approached could not, in and of itself, create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (id. at 448, 591 N.Y.S.2d 823, 606 N.E.2d 951 [citation omitted]).

Stating that officers are permitted to forcibly stop and detain a person for questioning where the officer has reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime

Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"

Beginning analysis with the "gunpoint stop" where officers acting on an anonymous tip had arrived at the scene and approached the defendant "who began to walk away"

Holding that a twenty-one-day delay that elapsed between an officer’s application for a search warrant and the officer’s execution of the search warrant nullified probable cause

In People v. Harrison (57 N.Y.2d 470, 476), the Court of Appeals held that: "Confining the occupants to the car, even temporarily, is at least equivalent to a stop.

Concluding that a detective's order to "[j]ust keep your hands where I can see them" was a seizure because the defendant's "freedom of movement was significantly restrained"