People v. Schanbarger
| Decision Date | 10 April 1969 |
| Citation | 24 N.Y.2d 288,248 N.E.2d 16,300 N.Y.S.2d 100 |
| Parties | , 248 N.E.2d 16 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald SCHANBARGER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Donald Schanbarger, in pro. per.
Con G. Cholakis, Dist. Atty. (Kermit D. McGinnis, Troy, of counsel), for respondent.
State Trooper Kellogg was on routine patrol on Routes 9 and 20 in the Townships of Schodack and East Greenbush in the early morning hours of April 30, 1968. At about 3 o'clock in the morning he observed a man walking along the highway but he paid little attention to him, other than noting that the hour was late, and thought that it was someone returning home since it was a residential area. About a half-hour later, while still on the same highway, Trooper Kellogg observed the same man walking along the highway in the vicinity of the East Greenbush Shopping Center. His suspicions were aroused as to the man's intent and purpose since this particular area had been the subject of frequent burglaries. The trooper stopped his vehicle and asked the man to come over to the car and tell him where he was going, where he was coming from and his identity and where he resided. The man replied that he did not think he had to answer the questions. The trooper informed the man that his refusal to answer the questions could result in his being arrested for loitering but the man still refused to answer the questions. The trooper arrested the man and a search of his person revealed that his name was that of the defendant, Donald Schanbarger.
Trooper Kellogg filed an information charging the defendant with violation of section 240.35 (subd. 6) of the Penal Law in that he 'did remain & wander about in a public place without apparent reason under circumstances which justify suspicion & upon inquiry of a peace officer TO WIT: TPR KELLOGG refused to identify himself and failed to give a reasonable credible account of his conduct or purpose.' Upon the trial of the charge, the trooper testified to the facts as recited above and defendant was convicted and fined $10.
On this pro se appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted. We find it unnecessary to deal with the constitutional argument. The subdivision of the statute under which he was convicted contains clauses which are conjunctive, rather than disjunctive, and, in order to sustain a conviction under it, each of the conjunctive elements must be proved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alba
...583, 590, 430 N.Y.S.2d 578, 408 N.E.2d 908), and his refusal to submit "cannot constitute a criminal act" (People v. Schanberger, 24 N.Y.2d 288, 292, 300 N.Y.S.2d 100, 248 N.E.2d 16). The arrest which followed was a pretext, intended solely to facilitate the desired search. Such arrests hav......
-
People v. Howard
...95 S.Ct. 1454, 43 L.Ed.2d 767). Presence in an area of "frequent burglaries" was an insufficient basis (People v. Schanbarger, 24 N.Y.2d 288, 291, 300 N.Y.S.2d 100, 248 N.E.2d 16); in this day of unisex haircuts and clothing, the carrying of woman's vanity case was at best equivocal (People......
-
People v. De Bour
...for arrest in recent cases (see, e.g., People v. Stokes, 32 N.Y.2d 202, 344 N.Y.S.2d 859, 298 N.E.2d 49; People v. Schanbarger, 24 N.Y.2d 288, 300 N.Y.S.2d 100, 248 N.E.2d 16; People v. Merolla, 9 N.Y.2d 62, 211 N.Y.S.2d 155, 172 N.E.2d 541; see generally, ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment ......
-
People v. Ocasio
...[95 S.Ct. 1454, 43 L.Ed.2d 767] ). Presence in an area of "frequent burglaries" was an insufficient basis (People v. Schanbarger, 24 NY2d 288, 291 [300 N.Y.S.2d 100, 248 N.E.2d 16] ) People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 370, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39, relied upon by the dissenters, lends no......