You are here: / / THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL...
,

THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the application for a warrant to search defendant’s cell phone did not provide probable cause for the search:

At the time of the arrest, a cell phone was recovered from the defendant’s person. Shortly thereafter, the arresting officer submitted an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant to search the cell phone. In relevant part, the officer averred that individuals involved in robberies and other crimes “utilize mobile telephones to facilitate their illegal activities,” and opined, without further elaboration or factual support, that the cell phone recovered on the defendant’s person “possesses information concerning the communications related to the instant robbery,” “had been utilized to speak with co-conspirators, suppliers and/or customers in furthering illegal activities,” and contained “information that would lead to further apprehensions.” …

… [T]he arresting officer’s conclusory statement that the cell phone contained information relevant to the robbery was bereft of any supporting factual allegations—hearsay or otherwise—and, therefore, plainly insufficient to establish probable cause … . Although the arresting officer later testified, at trial, that he had observed photographs of a gun on the cell phone at the time of the defendant’s arrest, such information—which arguably could have established probable cause provided it had been lawfully obtained … —was never included in the officer’s supporting affidavit. Under these circumstances, the warrant application did not provide a reasonable factual basis for the issuance of the warrant … . People v Boothe, 2020 NY Slip Op 07084, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THEATER MANAGER WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED DEALING WITH UNRULY PATRONS AND KEEPING THE PREMISES SAFE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREATENED A PATRON WITH A PELLET GUN; THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE THEATER WAS LIABLE FOR THE MANAGER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DISCHARGED A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BUT NO HISTORY OF THREATENING OR ASSAULTING PEOPLE; THE PATIENT ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF, THE CAB DRIVER PAID BY THE HOSPITAL TO TAKE THE PATIENT HOME; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE; EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT REQUIRED A HOMEOWNER TO TAKE DOWN A FENCE; HOWEVER THE AUTHORITY FOR THE HEAVY FINE (OVER $35,000) WAS NOT VALID PURSUANT TO THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO HOLD BACK INFORMATION (OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE) UNTIL AFTER JURY SELECTION VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST FOR THE ORDER; THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW DISCOVERY PROVISIONS ADDRESSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION... AN ALLEGED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE...