You are here: / / POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED...

POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication should have been granted. The police did not notice signs of intoxication until after defendant was stopped and seized:

The officers’ testimony indicated that they did not perceive signs that defendant had committed the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol until after defendant was seized while walking away from the officers and then turned toward them. Thus, the officers’ observations did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop defendant, in the absence of “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity” … . People v Coronado, 2016 NY Slip Op 03601, 1st Dept 5-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STREET STOPS (POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY.
Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties
Nervous and Uncooperative Actions by Defendant Justified Search of Area Inside Defendant’s Car After Defendant Was Out of the Car and Had Been Frisked
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MISCALENDARED THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT DUE TO LAW OFFICE FAILURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF MATERIAL STACKED ON A FLATBED TRUCK.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER OR A TENANT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CASE COULD BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT UNAVAILABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WAS IN COURT REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 AND 241.

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

PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO... FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING...