Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Johann BECOATE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), rendered April 13, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 5 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. It is undisputed that, based on information that defendant may have been selling drugs, the police had at least a founded suspicion of criminality that entitled them to make a common-law inquiry. The record supports the court's finding that the police did not exceed the proper scope of such an inquiry. It was permissible for the officers, who did not draw their weapons, to approach defendant, follow him across a street, position themselves with one officer in front of defendant and the other behind him, direct him to stop, and ask him if he had anything on him; none of this conduct elevated the encounter to a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion (see e.g. People v. Stevenson, 55 A.D.3d 486, 867 N.Y.S.2d 56 [2008]; People v. Joseph, 38 A.D.3d 403, 404, 834 N.Y.S.2d 93 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 866, 840 N.Y.S.2d 895, 872 N.E.2d 1201 [2007]; People v. Grunwald, 29 A.D.3d 33, 38-39, 810 N.Y.S.2d 437 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 848, 816 N.Y.S.2d 754, 849 N.E.2d 977 [2006] ). Defendant's admission that he possessed marijuana provided probable cause for his arrest.
In view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the People's alternate theory that the police had reasonable suspicion justifying a seizure is properly before this Court.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 26, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)