Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
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
Attorney(S)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE LUDWIG, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM.

We conclude that defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. Defendant had been seen the previous evening with the victim of this violent assault and robbery. The following morning he was overheard saying that the victim kept her money in her brassiere. Later in the day, when stopped for questioning in conjunction with the assault, the defendant engaged in furtive conduct, refused to answer any inquiries, and turned to walk away. Thereupon, in view of the violent nature of the crime, the conduct of the defendant and the officers' fear for their own personal safety, defendant was patted down for weapons. Upon this record, we think the "stop and frisk" was proper. The facts of this case contrast sharply with those in People v Sanchez ( 38 N.Y.2d 72), in which there was no claim that the defendant was attempting to elude or evade the police, the arresting officer did not articulate any feeling of danger, the defendant had not engaged in furtive conduct, and the police possessed no information linking the defendant to possession of a weapon.

The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be affirmed.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. LUDWIG
(Mar 25, 1976)