Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Shaw

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


February 23, 2010

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
GEORGE SHAW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered January 12, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (seven counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (seven counts), possession of burglar's tools (three counts), and auto stripping in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

2035/06

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). At night, a police officer was patrolling an area known for car break-ins involving thefts of laptop computers and other electronic devices. He noticed defendant, who was disheveled and carrying a laptop bag, and whom he recognized as a person with a record of breaking into cars and stealing electronic devices. This gave the officer an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality, to make a level one request for information. When the officer simply called out to defendant by name, this did not constitute a seizure (see People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945 [1994]). The officer's single, non-threatening, non-accusatory question concerning the contents of the bag was an appropriate informational inquiry under the combination of circumstances present (see People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 190-191 [1992]; see also People v Carrasquillo, 54 NY2d 248, 253 [1981]; People v Faines, 297 AD2d 590, 593-94 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100223

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.