New York Court of Appeals, 1992

People v. Irizarry

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 20, 1992

79 N.Y.2d 890; 590 N.E.2d 234; 581 N.Y.S.2d 649; 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 171

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Newson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Mercado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Darby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
People v. Oldacre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Ellis (New York County Courts 2001)
People v. Grady (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Turriago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Banks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Owens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Battaglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Boyd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. King (New York Supreme Court 1993)
People v. Mc Gill (New York Supreme Court 1993)
People v. Hollman (N.Y. 1992)
People v. Bordeaux (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)

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 the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*892The police officer’s observations of the defendant in this case provided him with an "objective credible reason” to approach the defendant and ask him questions about his destination and identity (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181 [decided today]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). The police officer’s request to search the defendant’s bag was improper, however, because it was not based on a "founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” (People v Hollman, supra, at 191; People v De Bour, supra, at 223). Because the defendant’s consent was a product of the improper police inquiry, the trial court erred when it found that the defendant had consented to the search of his bag (see, People v Hollman, supra, at 194).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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