You are here: / / Statement Elicited by Unnecessary Force Properly Suppressed
,

Statement Elicited by Unnecessary Force Properly Suppressed

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s statement which led to the discovery of cocaine was the product of unjustified force used by the arresting officer.  Based upon a radio broadcast about a nearby robbery (in which the defendant was not involved), the police were justified in stopping defendant’s car, having the defendant get out of the car, and patting the defendant down for weapons.  After that, however, the arresting officer was not justified in pinning the defendant against the car and repeatedly asking him if he “had anything on him:”

…[T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s admission that he possessed drugs was the “result of a free and unconstrained choice’ ” by defendant … . Before repeatedly asking defendant whether he had “anything” on him, the arresting officer conducted a pat frisk and found no weapons. There was thus no need for the officer to be concerned about his safety. Moreover, although defendant did not respond when he was initially asked whether he had anything on him, that did not justify the use of physical force by the officer. It is clear that, as the court determined, defendant’s eventual incriminating response was prompted by the officer’s continuing use of force while repeating the same question that defendant refused to answer or answered in a manner that did not satisfy the officer. Although the People assert that the officer was unable to complete his pat frisk because defendant was attempting to flee, the court stated in its findings that defendant “did not flee or resist,” and the court’s determination in that regard is supported by the record and will not be disturbed … . People v Daniels, 2014 NY Slip Op 03406, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S SON SUFFERED A BROKEN JAW IN A COLLISION WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A GYM-CLASS TOUCH FOOTBALL GAME; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER SUCH A COLLISION WAS FORESEEABLE AND WHETHER INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT TO THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THERAPEUTIC COUNSELING A PREREQUISITE FOR VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PROMOTING PROSTITUTION CONVICTIONS REVERSED BECAUSE THE PROMOTING PROSTITUTION COUNTS ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF SEX TRAFFICKING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME WHEN THEY BLOCKED DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH THE POLICE VEHICLE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE; PLEA VACATED AND SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION.
Defendant Was Lawfully Seized by Police Under these Facts
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT).
SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH 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

People’s Failure, at a Reconstruction Hearing, to Prove Defendant Was... Court Should Not Have Deferred, Over Defense Counsel’s Objection, to Defendant’s...