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. Thomas Correa, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J. at suppression hearing; James A. Yates, J. at plea and sentence), rendered December 4, 2008, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Police investigating a possible narcotics transaction in an apartment building had an objective, credible reason to make a common-law inquiry of defendant. The officers were in the stairwell of a crime-ridden location when defendant descended the stairs, made eye contact with one of the officers, grabbed at a large bulge in his pocket, and turned to walk back up the stairs (see e. g. People v. Flores, 226 A.D.2d 181 [1996], lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 985 [1996] ). The record fails to support defendant's assertion that the police saw the bulge only after they had already made a level-two inquiry, or his characterization of the police action in following him up a stairway as “pursuit.” Instead, the police did no more than “follow defendant while attempting to engage him,” which is within the scope of a level-two inquiry (People v. Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 500 [2006] ). When defendant engaged in additional suspicious conduct regarding the bulge in the pocket, the officers were justified in taking self-protective measures by removing him from the stairwell into the hallway and patting down the bulge, which led to the discovery of a firearm.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3444
Decided: October 26, 2010
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)