You are here: / / THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER...
,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION OR AS A LIMITED SAFETY SEARCH, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun found in his vehicle and a post-seizure statement was properly granted:

… [O]fficers responded to the complainant’s home after receiving a call that he had been threatened by defendant. The complainant told an officer that defendant threatened to shoot him and that he believed the threat was serious because defendant had been in possession of a black handgun prior to the instant incident. Defendant, who was seated in his truck, which was parked in front of the complainant’s home, acknowledged that he had previously said he would shoot the complainant if the complainant entered defendant’s property. Based on that information and defendant’s admissions that he owned a rifle, which was at his home, and that he had a Virginia pistol permit but no New York pistol permit, the officers searched defendant’s person but recovered no weapons. The officers then searched the area near the driver’s seat of defendant’s truck, from which they recovered a loaded handgun. …

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits a police officer to ” search a vehicle without a warrant when [the officer has] probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there’ ” … . [T]he police did not have probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after they searched him and determined that there was no immediate threat to their safety … , inasmuch as defendant was not alleged to have brandished a gun at the scene, there was inconclusive evidence that he actually threatened the complainant at the scene, defendant did not engage in any suspicious or furtive movements, and the officers did not observe any weapons or related contraband in the vehicle or on defendant’s person … . …

… [T]he officers’ search of defendant’s vehicle was not justifiable as a limited safety search. Probable cause is not required for a limited search of a vehicle ” where, following a lawful stop, facts revealed during a proper inquiry or other information gathered during the course of the encounter lead to the conclusion that a weapon located within the vehicle presents an actual and specific danger to the officers’ safety sufficient to justify a further intrusion’ ” … . However, the Court of Appeals has “emphasized . . . that a reasonable suspicion alone will not suffice” and that “the likelihood of a weapon in the [vehicle] must be substantial and the danger to the officer’s safety actual and specific” … . People v Pastore, 2019 NY Slip Op 06930, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

You might also like
Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements
DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THE WAIVER OF APPEAL FORECLOSED ALL APPELLATE RIGHTS; THE WAIVER WAS THEREFORE INVALID (FOURTH DEPT). ​
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).
Restaurant Chair Collapsed: No Question of Fact About Constructive Notice of Condition of the Chair/Res Ipsa Loquitur Did Not Apply
ALTHOUGH FATHER, WHO HAD BEEN IN THE MILITARY, HAD NOT PROCURED HOUSING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS UNDER-SIX-MONTH-OLD SON, HE DEMONSTRATED HE WAS WILLING AND ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD; THEREFORE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS WAS REQUIRED AND CUSTODY WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO HIM; THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER’S FAILURE TO PROCURE HOUSING RENDERED HIM UNABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Inadequate Supervision and Unsanitary Living Conditions Warranted a Neglect Finding

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

THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY AIDED THE PRINCIPALS IN... RAPE THIRD IS NOT AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF RAPE FIRST; THE VERDICT SHEET...