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
FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM.
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS SERVED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)
IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT STOPPED SHORT DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
Res Ipsa Loquitur Need Not Be Pled and Should Have Been Applied.
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S FALL GETTING OUT OF A POLICE CAR WAS NOT AN UNEXPECTED ACCIDENT OR DUE TO A RISK INHERENT IN THE JOB; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
Post-Arrest Exception to Warrant Requirement for Automobile Search Explained
THE DEFAULT LETTER DID NOT DECLARE THE MORTGAGE DEBT IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE; THEREFORE THE LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED TENANT’S USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

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...