People v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 28 November 1978 |
| Citation | 45 N.Y.2d 998,413 N.Y.S.2d 117,385 N.E.2d 1045 |
| Parties | , 385 N.E.2d 1045 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth Ray JENNINGS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed. The issue presented in this case is whether the activities of the defendant, as observed by the police, justified the blocking of defendant's vehicle so as to prevent its forward movement.
While on routine patrol in an unmarked car two police officers, serving as members of the Nassau County Police Department crime prevention unit, parked their vehicle in the Lake Success Shopping Center. During the period of observation they noticed codefendant Milton walking back and forth in front of several stores in the shopping center. One of the officers followed Milton who walked to the rear and then returned to the front of the shopping center. Milton met defendant Jennings, who had exited from a restaurant, and they then drove to an adjacent parking lot. The officers pursued them, and blocked their vehicle by pulling up perpendicularly in front of it.
The relatively innocuous behavior of the defendant prior to the stop might at most have justified an inquiry and investigation to determine if criminal activity was at hand (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). But, in blocking defendant's vehicle with their own, the officers engaged in excessively intrusive conduct which "significant(ly) interrupt(ed) * * * (defendant's) liberty of movement", thereby effecting an unconstitutional seizure (People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 111, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 514, 324 N.E.2d 872, 876). Defendant's statements which flowed directly from the illegal seizure, should therefore have been suppressed.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. City of White Plains
...apprehension), and the degree to which the individual's physical liberty of movement is constrained. People v. Jennings, 45 N.Y.2d 998, 413 N.Y.S.2d 117, 385 N.E.2d 1045 (1978) (holding that police action in blocking defendant's vehicle with their own in order to investigate innocuous activ......
-
People v. Lucynski
... ... 809; 231 Cal.Rptr 1 (1986) (holding that a seizure occurred ... when the officer "stopped his marked patrol vehicle ... behind the parked station wagon in such a way that the exit ... of the parked vehicle was prevented"); People v ... Jennings , 45 N.Y.2d 998, 999; 385 N.E.2d 1045 (1978) ... (holding that a seizure occurred when officers blocked the ... defendant's vehicle in a parking lot with a patrol ... car) ... [ 14 ] While the dissent relies heavily on ... O'Malley , we find that decision to be ... ...
-
People v. Lucynski
...behind the parked station wagon in such a way that the exit of the parked vehicle was prevented"); People v Jennings , 45 N.Y.2d 998, 999, 385 N.E.2d 1045, 413 N.Y.S.2d 117 (1978) (holding that a seizure occurred when officers blocked the defendant's vehicle in a parking lot with a patrol c......
-
People v. Hurdle
...activity or posed some danger to the police” ( People v. Lopez, 75 A.D.3d 610, 612, 905 N.Y.S.2d 647;see People v. Jennings, 45 N.Y.2d 998, 413 N.Y.S.2d 117, 385 N.E.2d 1045;People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562;People v. Creary, 61 A.D.3d 887, 889, 877 N.Y.S.2d......