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. Troy SIMMONS, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at suppression hearing; Neil E. Ross, J. at plea, sentencing and determination upon remand), rendered May 20, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.
On his initial appeal (151 A.D.3d 628, 58 N.Y.S.3d 329 [1st Dept. 2017] ), defendant argued that the hearing court improperly denied his suppression motion on the ground that the officer recovered a gravity knife from him based on a “search incident to arrest.” The People contended otherwise, and also argued, in the alternative, as they did at the suppression hearing, that the officer's act of taking the knife from defendant's pocket, where the handle of the knife and its clip were in plain view, was permissible as a self-protective minimal intrusion. We held that the court erred in denying the motion on the incident-to-arrest ground, but held the appeal in abeyance and remanded the matter for a determination on the People's alternative argument, as we could not reach it under CPL 470.15(1).
On remand, the court properly concluded that the officer's retrieval of the knife from defendant's pocket was permissible as a self-protective minimal intrusion under the principle articulated in People v. Miranda, 19 N.Y.3d 912, 950 N.Y.S.2d 615, 974 N.E.2d 661 (2012). As this Court has already determined, the officer was conducting a lawful stop at the time he observed the knife. Based on his training, the officer could reasonably conclude that the clip and handle, which were protruding from defendant's pocket and plainly visible, signified the presence of some kind of knife. Given that a complainant, who had injuries on his face, had just informed the officer that defendant had recently assaulted him, the officer had a reasonable basis to fear for his safety. Accordingly, the officer's retrieval of the knife was proper (see People v. Randall, 143 A.D.3d 411, 38 N.Y.S.3d 545 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1149, 52 N.Y.S.3d 301, 74 N.E.3d 686 [2017]; People v. Terrance, 101 A.D.3d 624, 625, 957 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1065, 962 N.Y.S.2d 616, 985 N.E.2d 926 [2013] ).
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: 4229
Decided: April 24, 2018
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)