§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent, v Stanley Hardee, Appellant.

Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,227 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  2. People v. De Bour

    40 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 2,265 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.

  3. People v. Hollman

    79 N.Y.2d 181 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 779 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

  4. People v. Garcia

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8670 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Garcia, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's determination that the police lacked the requisite founded suspicion when, upon stopping a vehicle for a mere defective brake light, an officer asked if any of the occupants had a weapon (see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d at 324).

  5. People v. Robinson

    74 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 222 times

    Argued May 31, 1989 Decided July 11, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, William Garry, J. Amy Donner and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant. Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Elizabeth S. Ostrow and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of conviction and the denial of suppression should be affirmed. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

  6. People v. Torres

    74 N.Y.2d 224 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 212 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting Supreme Court's expansive view of "stop and frisk" procedures as applied to automobiles

  7. People v. Batista

    88 N.Y.2d 650 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 143 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining a “frisk” as a “pat down of the outer clothing of a suspect”

  8. People v. Chestnut

    51 N.Y.2d 14 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 190 times
    In People v Chestnut (51 N.Y.2d 14, 23 [1980], cert denied 449 U.S. 1018 [1980]), the Court of Appeals applied the principles discussed in Prochilo, warning that, "in this difficult area of street encounters between private citizens and law enforcement officers, [courts must not] attempt to dissect each individual act by the policemen; rather, the events must be viewed and considered as a whole, remembering that reasonableness is the key principle when undertaking the task of balancing the competing interests presented."

  9. People v. Mundo

    99 N.Y.2d 55 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 77 times
    In Mundo, the failure of the driver to stop the vehicle and the repeated attempts to evade the police, which resulted in a near collision with a pedestrian, demonstrated a willingness to endanger the safety of others (see 99 N.Y.2d at 57, 750 N.Y.S.2d 837, 780 N.E.2d 522).

  10. People v. Carvey

    89 N.Y.2d 707 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 80 times
    In Carvey, the bulletproof vest, combined with the defendant's act of furtively placing something under his seat — which implied that the gun was previously held at ready — was sufficient to justify the protective search because it suggested "more than the presence of a deadly weapon — it demonstrate[d] [the defendant's] readiness and willingness to use a deadly weapon" (89 NY2d at 712).