You are here: / / THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER...
,

THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court and holding that decisions to the contrary should no longer be followed, determined the odor of marijuana smoke and the small about of marijuana on the console of the defendant’s car did not, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, justify the full search of the trunk of the car. Therefore the firearm found in the trunk should have been suppressed:

… “[T]he automobile exception. . . is an exception only to the warrant requirement; it does not, in contrast to the search-incident-to-arrest exception, dispense with the requirement that there be probable cause to search the vehicle” … . * * *

We are left with the question of whether the presence of a small amount of marijuana consistent with personal use provided the requisite probable cause and nexus to justify a search of the trunk. We find that in this case it did not. The only reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence here was that the de minimis amount of unburnt marijuana was for personal use, not for distribution or trafficking. The officer did not find any drug paraphernalia in the car. Indeed, in this case, there was “scant evidence of drugs in the car” … , and there was no probable cause to believe there was contraband in the trunk of the car. Therefore, because a proper search pursuant to the automobile exception “is no narrower-and no broader-than [sic] the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause, [and] otherwise is as the magistrate could authorize” … , we find that here the search of the trunk was not supported by probable cause. Consequently, the gun found therein, and the statements made by defendant thereafter, should have been suppressed. People v Ponder, 2021 NY Slip Op 02880, First Dept 5-6-21

 

You might also like
THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF CONCRETE FROM THE STRUCTURE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Although “Imprudent” in Hindsight, ​Insurer Did Not Breach Duty of Good Faith by Refusing to Offer a Settlement at the Policy Limit
EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
ONCE THE CITY TAX LIENS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PAYMENT TO THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE LIENHOLDER, IS NOT APPLIED TO THE DEBT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THAT THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (A PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR A SNOW AND ICE CONDITION UNTIL A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE PRECIPITATION HAS STOPPED); THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S EFFORT TO REMOVE SNOW HOURS BEFORE THE FALL CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; TO MEET THAT BURDEN AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS NOT, SUBMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 20 DAYS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE 10 DAYS AFTER FILING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL PRECLUDES AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S... PLAINTIFF, ON A BICYCLE, WAS STRUCK BY A BUS AND SUFFERED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY,...