You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BY OFFICERS WHO BELIEVED HE WAS DEFENDANT’S...
,

DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BY OFFICERS WHO BELIEVED HE WAS DEFENDANT’S BROTHER FOR WHOM THERE WERE OUTSTANDING ARREST WARRANTS; THE PEOPLE FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE ARREST WARRANTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon seized from after he fled the police should have been granted. At the suppression hearing the officers testified they thought defendant was defendant’s brother and approached defendant because they aware of outstanding warrants for the brother’s arrest. To meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing, the People were required to prove the existence and validity of the arrest warrants, but no such proof was presented:

… ” [T]he arrest of a person who is mistakenly thought to be someone else is valid if the arresting officer (a) has probable cause to arrest the person sought, and (b) reasonably believed the person arrested was the person sought’ ” … . The ” reasonableness of the arresting officers’ conduct must be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest’ ” … . Thus, to establish a lawful arrest of defendant, the People were required to establish the existence of a validly issued arrest warrant for defendant’s brother or probable cause to arrest him … and, here, the People concede that the police arrested defendant based only upon the arrest warrants issued for defendant’s brother.

Contrary to the People’s position and the dissent’s assertion, we conclude that defendant challenged the existence and validity of the arrest warrants for his brother by questioning the police witnesses at the suppression hearing concerning the status of the arrest warrants and whether they were still valid … . Notably, the court acknowledged and “accept[ed] that the [d]efendant [was] in fact contesting the validity of [the] warrants.” Once defendant challenged the existence and validity of the arrest warrants, the People were ” required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the . . . warrant[s]’ ” … , or “reliable evidence that the warrant[s were] active and valid” … . Here, the People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as they failed to produce the arrest warrants themselves or other reliable evidence that the warrants were active and valid … . People v Dortch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04711, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ORAL AGREEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BUY PLAINTIFF’S HOUSE FOR $40,000, OTHERWISE VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, WAS ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE IT WAS PARTIALLY PERFORMED (FOURTH DEPT).
Relationship Between the “Open Repudiation [of Fiduciary Obligations] Rule” and the Laches Defense Explained/Allegations that Investments Made by the Fiduciary Underperformed Does Not State a Cause of Action for Breach of the Fiduciary Duty
Question of Fact About Whether Private Entity Managing Public Funds Can Recoup Payments Which Were Above Minimum Fees Required by the Medicare Fee Schedule
Failure of Sentencing Court to Inform Defendant of Period of Post-Release Supervision Required Release after Sentence Served
A SHOWING THAT MOTHER WAS ABUSED AND THE CHILD WITNESSED THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE RELATED ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE, AND THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH 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

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT... CLAIMANT’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS STUDENT-ON-STUDENT...