New York Court of Appeals, 1987

People v. Chilton

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 28, 1987

69 N.Y.2d 928; 516 N.Y.S.2d 633; 509 N.E.2d 327; 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16459

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

The People v. Robert Hinshaw (N.Y. 2020)
People v. Humpleby (New York Town and Village Courts 2005)
People v. Deacon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Kehley (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1995)
People v. Phraner (Suffolk County District Court 1991)
People v. Kaminski (Rhinebeck Justice Court 1991)
People v. Castro (N.Y. 1988)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of County Court should be affirmed.

The suppression court found a lack of probable cause to stop defendant’s van for alleged traffic infractions. On appeal, the County Court properly held that the legality of the stop should be measured against a reasonable suspicion standard (see, People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413). It affirmed, however, stating that "[t]he objective facts and circumstances did not support the stop as a matter of law based on the evidence the town court had before it” (emphasis added).

Whether a police officer has the requisite reasonable suspicion to believe a defendant had been, is then or is about to be engaged in conduct in violation of the law is generally a mixed question of law and fact which can rarely be resolved as a matter of law (People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477-478; People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 563-564, supra). Although the County Court stated that it made its determination that no reasonable suspicion existed "as a matter of law,” it is evident that the court independently assessed the facts in its affirmance. Thus, County Court’s findings on this mixed question of law and fact render the issue beyond the review powers of this court (People v Harrison, supra).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the *930Rules 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.