You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT,...
,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined evidence discovered as a result of defendant’s suppressed statement was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine:

​

The court properly denied the motion to suppress drugs recovered from defendant’s person. While the record demonstrates that they were discovered as the result of a statement that was suppressed, they were nevertheless admissible pursuant to the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Because defendant would have been subjected to several thorough searches following his arrest, there was a “very high degree of probability” that “normal police procedures” would inevitably have led to the discovery of the drugs, even without the statement … . In light of this determination …  “we find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether, given United States Supreme Court authority to the contrary (see United States v Patane, 542 US 630 [2004]), physical evidence may be suppressed as fruit of a Miranda violation.” People v Jaquez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04050, 1st Dept 5-18-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE)/INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE (ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE)

You might also like
PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT INTERPRETED TO WAIVE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE DESPITE ABSENCE OF THE PRECISE TERM.
TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS.
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
Rights of Adopted Children.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).
MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS.
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST 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

TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY... HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS TO THE...