You are here: / / Even If Initial Frisk of Defendant Was Unlawful, the Defendant’s...
,

Even If Initial Frisk of Defendant Was Unlawful, the Defendant’s Pushing the Officer and Running Away Justified the Defendant’s Arrest (for Harassment of the Officer) and Seizure of Drugs

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.  Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police.  A police officer told defendant to get out of the vehicle and proceeded to frisk him.  The defendant then pushed the officer and ran away.  He was captured and drugs were subsequently found.  The Fourth Department determined that, even if the frisk was unlawful, the defendant’s pushing the officer and running away were not precipitated by the frisk:

Even assuming, arguendo, that the frisk was unlawful, we conclude that defendant’s act of pushing the frisking officer was not “spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality . . . [but] was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … . We therefore conclude that there was probable cause for defendant’s subsequent arrest for harassment of the frisking officer … . Consequently, the drugs seized from defendant’s person and the backseat of the patrol car were discovered incident to a lawful arrest … . People v Fox, 2015 NY Slip Op 00034, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

You might also like
AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE DRIVER AND WAS RESPONDING TO A CALL AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN PERSONAL PICKUP TRUCK, WHICH WAS NOT AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Commercial Property Overvalued—Evidentiary Criteria Explained In Some Depth
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE OFFENSES DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN ONTARIO COUNTY AND DID NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR EFFECT ON ONTARIO COUNTY; THEREFORE THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM (FOURTH DEPT).
Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law 200 for Injury Stemming from the Manner In Which the Work Is Done
Objection to Molineux Evidence Not Preserved for Appeal
ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH 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

Insufficient Evidence Defendant Shared the Intent of the Seller of Heroin—Conviction... Error Associated With Defendant’s Being Handcuffed During the Suppression...