Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Brannon

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 2011No. 77, No. 78Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJones, J.

Because a gravity knife can be indistinguishable from a lawful knife in appearance, and its illegality can only be ascertained by its operation, I would hold that a stop and frisk based on the mere observance of a portion of a knife and the experience of the arresting police officer is not supported by sufficient reasonable suspicion. Therefore, I concur with the majority’s result in People v Brannon, but respectfully dissent in People v Fernandez, for the reasons below.

Penal Law § 265.00 (5) defines a gravity knife as: “any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. People v. De BourNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. People v. CantorNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. People v. HowardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  5. People v. NealAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API