Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. James Spivey, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1979-03-29
Citations: 46 N.Y.2d 1014
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v James Spivey, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 1014–1016

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v James Spivey, Respondent.
Argued February 9, 1979;
decided March 29, 1979
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Allen H. Saperstein and Billie Manning of counsel), for appellant.
Elaine Stogel and William E. Hellerstein for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order appealed from should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.
On the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the challenged police conduct was unreasonable. Having just received a police radio call informing them that an armed robbery had been, committed (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636, 640-641), the officers were justified in stopping defendant, who met the description of the robber and was walking on a deserted street in the vicinity of the crime (see People v Green, 35 NY2d 193, 196). Similarly, the limited pat-down of Spivey was proper. During questioning, defendant refused to furnish his name or a specific address, and he repeatedly removed his hands from the radio car and shuffled them around. Given this situation and defendant's status as an armed-robbery suspect, it was quite reasonable for the officer to investigate the suspicious bulges in the jacket pockets (see, also, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902; People v Kinlock, 43 NY2d 832).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.
Order reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.