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 PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENT’S CUSTODY AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
A TITLE HOLDER WHO DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE BUT DID SIGN THE MORTGAGE IS ENTITLED TO THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERED THE RECORD ON APPEAL INADEQUATE IN THIS CHILD CUSTODY CASE; MATTER SENT BACK TO FAMILY COURT FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH A SLAM DANCER, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF WAS LEANING INSIDE THE OPEN DOOR OF A VAN WHEN THE VAN SUDDENLY MOVED FORWARD; THE RELATED VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).
BY SUBMITTING A CLAIM TO THE “SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND” (VCF), PLAINTIFF, WHO ALLEGED HIS PROSTATE CANCER WAS RELATED TO HIS WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUE HIS PHYSICIAN FOR AN ALLEGED DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PROSTATE CANCER (SECOND 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 © 2025 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...