New York Court of Appeals, 1979

People v. Spivey

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 29, 1979 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg Concur

46 N.Y.2d 1014; 389 N.E.2d 1056; 416 N.Y.S.2d 534; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1937

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Terrell W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Cook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Pagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Alford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Ulmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Joyner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Holburt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Mayes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
People v. St. Clair (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Renaud (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
People v. Hadley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

On the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the challenged police conduct was unreasonable. Having just received a police radio call informing them that an armed *1016 robbery had been, committed (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636, 640-641), the officers were justified in stopping defendant, who met the description of the robber and was walking on a deserted street in the vicinity of the crime (see People v Green, 35 NY2d 193, 196). Similarly, the limited pat-down of Spivey was proper. During questioning, defendant refused to furnish his name or a specific address, and he repeatedly removed his hands from the radio car and shuffled them around. Given this situation and defendant’s status as an armed-robbery suspect, it was quite reasonable for the officer to investigate the suspicious bulges in the jacket pockets (see, also, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902; People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.