Case ID: ny-2d_43/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fuchsberg, J. (dissenting).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Kinlock, Appellant.
    Argued November 18, 1977;
    decided December 21, 1977
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Susan E. Hofkin, William E. Hellerstein and William J. Gallagher for appellant.
    
      John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Joan L. Craig of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed on the opinion by Mr. Justice George J. Balbach at Criminal Term, Supreme Court, Queens County (see, also, People v Stewart 41 NY2d 65).

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke. Judge Fuchsberg dissents and votes to reverse in the following opinion.

Fuchsberg, J. (dissenting).

To permit a "pat-down” or search on no more than an anonymous telephone call, as here, would be to expose innocent individuals to intrusion on their persons whenever malicious and unidentifiable tipsters accompany their false accusations with accurate descriptions of the targets they choose to name (see People v Stewart, 41 NY2d 65, 69; People v Green, 35 NY2d 193, 196). In the present case, for instance, unlike People v Stroller (42 NY2d 1052), the defendant’s answer was not unresponsive when the police officer approached him to make a common-law inquiry in response to the anonymous telephone call. Nor, unlike People v Williams (41 NY2d 65), where the police officer had had several prior official encounters with the defendant and the latter had a suggestive bulge in the side of his overcoat (p 67), were there any such signs here. In brief, the defendant before us was not previously known to the officer, was responsive to the inquiry and there was no bulge to be observed. Accordingly, I would vote to reverse.

Order affirmed, etc.