The Chemung County 911 call center received a report of a man with a gun at a local bar. (The caller claimed the individual in question was wearing a black fur coat, light blue pants and a green hat.)
When officers arrived at the scene, they approached and arrested Jenkins -- a man who fit the caller's description -- and found a loaded 9mm pistol on his person.
After he was convicted of second degree criminal possession of a weapon, Jenkins appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department, which didn't think his request to suppress the pistol's introduction at his trial should have been granted. (According to the decision, Jenkins's papers weren't very persuasive and he reportedly failed to deny any criminal wrongdoing.)
The AD3 thought officers acted appropriately given that Jenkins identity matched the description provided. It also didn't help Jenkins's case that he repeatedly reached into his pockets and waistband as the police encounter progressed.
Was that a tight fit?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Jenkins