You are here: / / Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful
,

Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful

In determining the search of defendant’s backpack was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances to justify it, the First Department wrote:

The search of defendant’s backpack following his arrest was unlawful because he was handcuffed at the time of the search and it was no longer in his control…. The contents of the backpack, which included a pair of pliers and unused garbage bags, should have been suppressed because even where a container is not in the exclusive control of the police, exigency justifying its search incident to arrest is not established in the absence of “some reasonable basis for the belief that the contents of those containers might pose a danger to the arresting officers or when there is legitimate concern for the preservation of evidence which might reasonably be thought to reside within the containers”….  People v Diaz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03937, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

You might also like
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal
TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE COLLISION CASE; THE TRUCK DRIVER BREACHED HIS DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN (FIRST DEPT).
SORA Amendments Did Not Render Statute Punitive—Ex Post Facto Clause Not Applicable​
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING THE TRIAL, REQUESTED TO BE RELIEVED FROM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING AND INTERVIEWING THE CHILD.
PLAINTIFF, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, SUFFICIENTLY PLED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES; PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Ju... Absence of Evidence of Physical Injury Precluded 15 Point Assessment for Violence...