AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MAURICE DAVIS, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his constitutional rights were violated by a forcible stop, search and seizure which he alleges was improper. He argues, therefore, that the gun recovered as a result of that procedure should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. We disagree. The determination of the hearing court, with its advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses, must be accorded great weight (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous (see, People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726; People v. Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700, 701-702). Here, the officers obtained information about a violent crime involving guns from a citizen witness who volunteered his name and address and who the police believed to be telling the truth. Therefore, when the officers observed four individuals who substantially matched the descriptions given by the witness and who were two blocks away from the scene of the purported crime, within 30-35 minutes of the commission of the crime, they had probable cause to suspect that these individuals had committed the crime. They were therefore justified in "intruding upon the individual's liberty in the greatest possible way" (People v. Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, 675). The officers were entitled to frisk the defendant in the reasonable belief that they were in danger of physical injury by virtue of the defendant being armed (see, CPL 140.50; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267; People v. Finlayson, supra, at 670). Moreover, once a gun was recovered, there was probable cause to believe that the other individuals may have also possessed weapons or were guilty of constructively possessing that weapon. Accordingly, the denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun recovered as a result of that search was proper. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. DAVIS
(Oct 15, 1990)