You are here: / / THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S...
,

THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CONDUCTING AN INVENTORY SEARCH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle should have been granted. The police did not demonstrate a lawful bas for impounding the vehicle and conducting an inventory search:

… [T]he People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search … . Although, at the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was “parked on the corner” at the time of the defendant’s arrest, there was no testimony that the vehicle was parked illegally or that there were any posted time limits pertaining to the space where the vehicle was parked. The People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had parked his vehicle, and the officer testified that the vehicle was driven to the precinct because it was used in the commission of a crime. 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, although the officer who performed the inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle testified that the policy for conducting such searches was located in the Patrol Guide, the People presented no evidence demonstrating the requirements of the policy for impounding and searching a vehicle, or whether the officer complied with that policy when she conducted the inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle … . People v Rivera, 2021 NY Slip Op 08256, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

You might also like
Police May Direct Occupants to Step Out of the Car After a Vehicle-Stop
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED “MORE THAN AN HOUR” BEFORE AND EVIDENCE OTHERS WERE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE FALL DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
CALIFORNIA STATUTE IS A PROCEDURAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NOT A SUBSTANTIVE STATUTE OF REPOSE, THEREFORE THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A NEW YORK ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.
Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No License Required
Application for Area Variances Properly Denied—Court’s Review Criteria Explained—General City Law and Town Law Criteria for Area Variance Explained
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW THROWER WAS DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED AND WHETHER WARNINGS WERE ADEQUATE (SECOND DEPT).
Permanent Neglect Established—Mental Illness

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

PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY... THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING...