You are here: / / SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT...
, ,

SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a three-judge dissent, determined the search of a juvenile’s shoe at the police station was reasonable. Therefore, the weapon found in the shoe was admissible. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the dissent below did not present a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact:

Respondent initially told police on the street that he was 16 years old. Because he lacked identification, the police transported him to the precinct, where, nearly an hour later, he told them that he was only 15 years old. Thereafter, the officers treated respondent as a juvenile, placing him in a juvenile room and making him remove his belt, shoelaces and shoes as a protective measure until his parents were notified and he could be picked up from the precinct. Based on respondent’s representation that he was 16 years old and the officers’ observations of him in the street, the officers had probable cause to arrest respondent for disorderly conduct.

We also conclude that the limited search of respondent’s shoes was reasonable. The majority found no fault with the request that respondent remove his belt and shoelaces as a safety precaution; rather it was the request to remove his shoes that the majority held to be “far more intrusive than a frisk or patdown” … . However, the officers were not first required to suspect that respondent either possessed contraband or posed a danger to himself or officers before being directed to remove his shoes. In that regard, the limited search of respondent’s shoes while he was temporarily detained and awaiting the notification of his parents was a reasonable protective measure employed by police to ensure both the safety of respondent and the officers, and the intrusion was minimal … . Matter of Jamal S., 2016 NY Slip Op 07045, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/FAMILY LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

You might also like
ETHICAL VIOLATION CANNOT BE USED AS A SWORD TO AVOID PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEE; BECAUSE TRIAL PREPARATION NOT NECESSARY, LOWER ATTORNEY’S-FEE PERCENTAGE APPLIED.
WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
NYC’S “OPEN SPACE” ZONING REQUIREMENT IS MET BY ROOFTOP GARDENS ON A SINGLE BUILDING IN A MULTI-BUILDING ZONING LOT (CT APP). ​
A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN ‘INTERNET IDENTIFIER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THEREFORE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IS NOT A CRIME (CT APP).
IN THIS COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL OF THE STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR A THREE-HOUR ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW HIS ATTORNEY TO ATTEND WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW HEARING ORDERED (CT APP).
DEFENSE EXPERT’S CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THE NEGLIGENT PRESCRIPTION OF TWO DRUGS CAUSED HEART DAMAGE.
In the Absence of Prejudice, a Notice of Lien May Be Amended to Correct a Misdescription of the True Property Owner

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

PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING... STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS...