You are here: / / NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH...
,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the search of defendant’s backpack could not be justified as a search incident to arrest because there was no evidence the backpack was within defendant’s reach when it was seized and searched:

The People failed to establish that the warrantless search of defendant’s backpack was a valid search incident to arrest … . The record does not contain evidence supporting a determination that the backpack was in defendant’s “immediate control or ‘grabbable area'” … . There is a lack of testimony in the record indicating where the bag was in relation to defendant immediately prior to the search. Because Supreme Court denied defendant’s suppression motion without reaching the People’s alternative argument raised in opposition, we remit the matter to Supreme Court … . People v Mabry, 2021 NY Slip Op 03348, CtApp 5-27-21

 

You might also like
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE DOES NOT VIOLATE RPAPL 1304 AND IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (CT APP) ​
PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT.
WHETHER A JUVENILE’S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE WAS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED JUVENILES SHOULD NOT BE INTERROGATED OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THEIR ADULT LEGAL GUARDIANS (CT APP).
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT.
PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.
Environmental Clean-Up Indemnification Agreement Between Seller and Buyer of Property Triggered by Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) “Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)” Letter to Buyer
Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed
SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.

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

THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT... PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR CONDITIONED HIS SUPPORT OF...