You are here: / / THE IMPOUNDMENT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, WHICH WAS LEGALLY...
,

THE IMPOUNDMENT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, WHICH WAS LEGALLY PARKED AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, WERE ILLEGAL; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the impoundment of defendant’s car, which was legally parked car at the time of defendant’s arrest, was illegal. The subsequent search of the car was not a valid inventory search. The seized evidence should have been suppressed:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered from his vehicle. The People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search … . At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was legally parked at the time of the defendant’s arrest, and there was no testimony regarding posted time limits pertaining to the parking space. Further, although the officer testified that he impounded the defendant’s vehicle for “safekeeping,” the People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had parked his vehicle. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, while the arresting officer testified that “[t]here is [an] NYPD procedure when someone is arrested and you have to take the car into safekeeping,” the People failed to present evidence of what such a procedure required or whether the arresting officer complied with such a procedure when he impounded the defendant’s vehicle … . People v King, 2020 NY Slip Op 06288, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

You might also like
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY TIMELY RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR MISSING THE 90-DAY DEADLINE; HERE THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE BUT THE MUNICIPALITY DID RECEIVE TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE MOTHER’S VIOLATION OF SIX CONDITIONS OF A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT, TERMINATING HER PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF HER SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP.
Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained
THE AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY COURT ACT WHICH PRECLUDES A FINDING OF NEGLECT BASED SOLELY ON MARIJUANA USE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S NEGLECT OF THE CHILD BASED UPON HER “ABUSE” (AS OPPOSED TO “USE”) OF MARIJUANA (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
Misrepresentation that Dwelling Was “Owner-Occupied” Justified Rescission of the Fire Insurance Policy

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 FEDERAL OFFENSE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM BE OPERABLE BUT THE NEW... RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE; DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY...