People v. Watson
| Decision Date | 22 April 1968 |
| Citation | 289 N.Y.S.2d 799,29 A.D.2d 987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alan WATSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty., Kings County, for respondent; William I. Siegel, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for defendant-appellant; Carol Berkman, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HOPKINS and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 19, 1967, convicting him, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny. This appeal has brought up for review an intermediate order of said court, made on November 23, 1966 after a hearing, which denied his motion to suppress certain evidence.
Judgment and order affirmed.
In our opinion, the circumstances herein present a classic case sustaining a detention under the 'Stop and Frisk' statute (Code Crim.Proc. § 180--a). We hold that a police officer, who responds to a radio patrol call and corners an alleged prowler after a chase, has reasonable grounds to detain the suspect for routine questioning and may require him to accompany the officer to the scene of the offense (see People v. Taggart, 20 N.Y.2d 335, 283 N.Y.S.2d 1, 229 N.E.2d 581; People v. Peters, 18 N.Y.2d 238, 273 N.Y.S.2d 217, 219 N.E.2d 595; cf. People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 227 N.E.2d 284).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Merola
...had committed a felony. Consequently, he could lawfully detain them and demand an explanation of their actions (People v. Watson, 29 A.D.2d 987, 289 N.Y.S.2d 799; Code Crim.Pro. § 180-a, subd. 1; see People v. Hester, 28 A.D.2d 909, 282 N.Y.S.2d 3). (3) An application of the same test susta......
-
People v. Trapier
...20 N.Y.2d 335, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1, 229 N.E.2d 581; People v. Ramirez; People v. Maize, 32 A.D.2d 1031, 365 N.Y.S.2d 372; People v. Watson, 29 A.D.2d 987, 289 N.Y.S.2d 799), which issue we need not now reach, there was no basis to interfere with this defendant's freedom of movement. Simply becau......