You are here: / / PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION...
,

PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Defendant walked in to a hospital with a gun shot wound and the police were notified. When the police officer arrived, defendant’s clothes were in a clear plastic bag on the floor. The officer examined the clothes and concluded defendant had shot himself with a gun which had been in his waistband. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals concluded one of the conditions of the plain-view warrant-exception had not been met by the evidence in the record, i.e., there was no showing the incriminating nature of the clothes was immediately apparent to the officer:

 

“Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent” … .

Against this backdrop we conclude that the hearing court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the clothes seized by police. There was evidence adduced at the suppression hearing that the officer who seized the clothes knew defendant to have been shot, and that defendant awaited treatment at the hospital while dressed in clothes different from those he wore at the time of the shooting. More important, however, is what the evidence presented at the suppression hearing does not establish. That evidence does not show that, before the seizure, the testifying officer knew that entry and exit wounds were located on an area of defendant’s body that would have been covered by the clothes defendant wore at the time of the shooting. Similarly, the record of that proceeding contains no other indicium that could have given rise to a reasonable belief that the shooting had affected defendant’s clothes. To that end, there is no record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the investigating officer had probable cause to believe that defendant’s clothes were the instrumentality of a crime … . People v Sanders, 2016 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SUPPRESSION (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREDMENT DID NOT APPLY)/PLAIN VIEW (EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)

You might also like
HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL INQUIRY INTO INMATE WITNESS’S ALLEGATION HE WAS COERCED INTO REFUSING TO TESTIFY.
DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION.
DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF COUNSEL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE DOES NOT VIOLATE RPAPL 1304 AND IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (CT APP) ​
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S CORRESPONDENCE-EVIDENCE THAT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAD BEEN ENTERED AND BREACHED BY THE DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
Rule Allowing Testing of Horses for Speed-Enhancing Drugs at Times Other than Just Before a Race Is a Valid Exercise of Racing & Wagering Board’s Authority
INSURERS MAY PROPERLY REFUSE NO-FAULT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY NONPHYSICIANS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUDULENT INTENT OR CONDUCT TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR NONPARTY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH THE NONPARTIES REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPELLATE RIGHTS AT SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE... QUESTIONS OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION...