You are here: / / THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLES;...
,

THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLES; SEIZED ITEMS PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the search warrant did not authorize the search of defendant’s vehicles and the items seized were properly suppressed:

The requirement that warrants must describe with particularity the places, vehicles, and persons to be searched is vital to judicial supervision of the warrant process … . Warrants “interpose the detached and independent judgment of a neutral Magistrate between the interested viewpoint of those engaged in ferreting out crime and potential encroachments on the sanctity and privacy of the individual” … . To further that role, our constitution assigns to the magistrate the tasks of evaluating whether probable cause exists to initiate a search and defining the subjects to be searched … .

The particularity requirement protects the magistrate’s determination regarding the permissible scope of the search. Thus, to be valid, a search warrant must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” … . So important is the role of the neutral and detached magistrate that we have in the past parted ways from federal constitutional jurisprudence when we believed that an emerging rule of federal constitutional law “dilute[s] . . . the requirements of judicial supervision in the warrant process” …

… The application contained no mention of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. Indeed, the observed pattern, as described in the affidavit, was for Mr. Gordon [defendant] to proceed from the residence to the street and back, without detouring to any vehicles parked at the residence. … “[N]o observation was reported as to any movement of persons between the house and the [vehicles]” … that would substantiate a belief that the vehicles searched were utilized in the alleged criminal activity.

Nor do we believe that the warrant for Mr. Gordon’s “person” or “premises”—in the context of the factual allegations averred by the detectives—authorized a search of the vehicles. … [T]he mere presence of a vehicle seen at the sight of premises wherein the police suspect criminal activity to be occurring does not by itself provide probable cause to search the vehicle … . People v Gordon, 2021 NY Slip Op 01093, CtApp 2-18-21

 

You might also like
Non-Resident Attorneys Must Maintain a Physical Office in New York State to Practice in New York
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (CT APP).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE 911 CALL WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE CALLER AND THE BASIS FOR THE CALLER’S KNOWLEDGE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS IRRELEVANT (CT APP).
Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re: Recovery for Lead Paint Exposure
In the Context of a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss, the Statute of Frauds Barred Actions Stemming from Advising Defendants in the Actual Negotiation of a Business Opportunity, But Did Not Bar Actions Stemming from Advising Defendants Whether to Negotiate a Business Opportunity
COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP).
TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE RATE CAPS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES WHICH USE THE PUBLIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TO DELIVER ELECTRICITY TO CONSUMERS (CT APP).

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

GRANDMOTHER WHO WITNESSED DEBRIS FROM THE FACADE OF A BUILDING INJURE HER TWO-YEAR-OLD... DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FOUR WITNESSES WHO...