People v Williams

Holding The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the police encounters were lawful at inception and every subsequent stage, thereby justifying the refusal to suppress physical evidence. The court also determined that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or severe.

The court’s words

level one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text

the People are nevertheless put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text

a court must determine whether the action taken was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text

the officer had the requisite founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to justify his acts of approaching and asking defendant whether he would consent to a search

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text

the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant committed a crime, i.e., a violation of the no-offensive-contact order of protection

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text

where a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of an automobile has committed a traffic violation, a stop does not violate

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text

the credibility determinations of the suppression court are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record

2026 NY Slip Op 04577, at the official text