People v. Woods
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Robinson (N.Y. 2001)
- People v. Peters (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Peters (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Essic (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Essic (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Herring (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Lucas (New York Supreme Court 1999)
- People v. Washington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Sanchez (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1998)
- People v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Irizarry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Scott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. McLaurin (N.Y. 1987)
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 of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In view of the findings of fact that the officers had reasonable grounds to fear for their safety, it cannot be said that they were unjustified in drawing their handguns as a precautionary measure when they approached defendant in his automobile. (See People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14, 21.) Nor was it unreasonable, in light of his past experience with defendant, for one of the officers to pat defendant in the chest area when defendant quickly reached toward the breast area of his jacket, and for that officer, upon feeling a hard object, to reach inside the jacket and retrieve it. (See People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271; Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 US 106,111-112.) Nor can we conclude, as a matter of law, that the police perpetrated a pretext stop or arrest.
*738 We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Chief Judge Cooke' and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.