Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 4, 1996

225 A.D.2d 568; 638 N.Y.2d 769; 638 N.Y.S.2d 769; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1868

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Rios (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Alston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Lemmo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Anekwe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Lynch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Casillas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Private (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Douglas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Schollin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the police did not have reasonable su&picion to frisk him, and therefore both the gun the police recovered and his spontaneous statement should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

The police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including a radio transmission providing a general description of the perpetrators and the defendant’s location, the close proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime, the short passage of time between the crime and the defendant’s presence near the location of the crime, and the officer’s observation of the defen*569dant, who matched the radio-transmitted description of one of the perpetrators (see, People v Thomas, 195 AD2d 489).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.