You are here: / / IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER...
,

IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, THE STOP OF A VEHICLE BASED ON AN OBSERVED TRAFFIC VIOLATION, THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALIDITY OF AN INVENTORY SEARCH, COUNTY COURT’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE IS REVERSED OVER TWO CONCURRENCES AND A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, over two concurrences and a two-justice dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the warrantless search of the vehicle in which cocaine was found was not demonstrated to be valid under the fellow officer rule, was not demonstrated to be valid pursuant to the automobile exception, and was not demonstrated to be based on a valid inventory search. In a nutshell, the claimed exceptions to the warrant requirement were rejected because they were not supported by the evidence at the suppression hearing. The detailed factual and legal analyses cannot be fairly summarized here. The opinion should be consulted on the issues addressed, including the propriety of the stop of the vehicle, because of the extraordinary depth of the discussions. County Court’s denial of suppression was based on the following findings. All except the reason for the stop (an observed traffic violation) were rejected on appeal:

The [county] court first concluded that the State Troopers had probable cause to stop the vehicle by virtue of “the fellow-officer rule.” … [T]he court cited to testimony that law enforcement officials had intercepted approximately 89,000 communications, and that some of these communications indicated that there would be a quantity of narcotics in the vehicle on the night in question.

… [T]he [county] court credited the testimony of one of the State Troopers who testified that he observed the subject vehicle exceed the maximum speed limit and fail to maintain its lane.

…[T]he [county] court concluded that the intercepted communications and the application of the fellow officer rule provided a lawful basis for the search of the vehicle at the outset of the traffic stop.

The [county court] concluded that the State Troopers were authorized to search the subject vehicle under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In this regard, the court noted that one of the State Troopers had reportedly detected the odor of marihuana when he initially approached the vehicle after it was pulled over.

Finally, the County Court determined, as a third alternative ground, that the cocaine was properly recovered pursuant to a valid inventory search.  People v Mortel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04498, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

You might also like
CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, BUT CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​
AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PREFERENCE OF CHILDREN NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED.
Motion to Vacate a Conviction Can Be Based Upon a Freestanding Claim of Actual Innocence—All Reliable Evidence, Even If Previously Barred at Trial or After Prior Motions to Vacate, May Be Presented at the Hearing
IN MOVING TO VACATE A MORE THAN $2 MILLION DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS MED MAL CASE, DEFENDANT DOCTOR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SHE WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS; A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION PROPERLY GRANTED, ELEMENTS OF PRE-AMENDMENT PROOF OF A CLAIM OF RIGHT APPLIED TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WHERE A DEFENDANT IS UNAWARE OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND THEREFORE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Determining Motions to Dismiss Affirmative Defenses Explained

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

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT AN INAUDIBLE RECORDING AND TO PROVIDE THE JURY... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN...