You are here: / / THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CLOSED CONTAINERS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE...
,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CLOSED CONTAINERS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ITEMS BEING IN DEFENDANT’S “GRABBABLE” AREA OR BY “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES;” CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a concurrence, determined the skimmer (a forgery device) was the product of an illegal warrantless search and should have been suppressed:

“To justify a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two requirements: The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest” … . Specific to this “place” requirement, the item searched must be conducted within the immediate control or grabbable area of the suspect … . “The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . …

… [T]he trooper testified that he removed the fanny pack and backpack from the apartment when he left and then placed defendant — who was in handcuffs — in the patrol vehicle. Thereafter, the trooper made a cursory search of the fanny pack and backpack on the hood of the vehicle. At the time of the search, defendant was incapable of grabbing the items as he was handcuffed and inside the trooper’s vehicle. The fanny pack and backpack were in the exclusive control of the trooper and defendant could not possibly gain possession of them or destroy any evidence in them … . …

[T]he record reflects that defendant’s demeanor and actions were not threatening, he had been pat-frisked earlier in the apartment, he was cooperative and offered no resistance when he was handcuffed and … the circumstances of defendant’s arrest did not give rise to a reasonable belief that the fanny pack or backpack contained a weapon or dangerous instrument. … [T]he trooper’s testimony at the suppression hearing did not demonstrate exigent circumstances. People v Crosse, 2021 NY Slip Op 04636, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

You might also like
DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ESTATE MET THE CRITERIA FOR ATTACHMENT AGAINST REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY DEFENDANTS WHO OWNED AND/OR OPERATED A LIMOUSINE RENTAL SERVICE; THE LIMOUSINE WAS INVOVLED IN A HORRIFIC ACCIDENT KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND 19 OTHERS (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE COVID VACCINATIONS; THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FATHER ALLEGEDLY WANTED THE VACCINE, MOTHER OBJECTED (THIRD DEPT).
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE REPRESENTED DEFENDANT AND THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Bring the Foreclosure Action
THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY IN CREATING THE HOST FAMILY PROGRAM FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (THIRD DEPT).
THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​
Superior Court Information Was Jurisdictionally Defective—The Offenses Were Not the Same As, or Lesser Included Offenses of, Those In the Felony Complaint

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

FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY (WHAT MOTHER TOLD THE CASEWORKER) IN THIS NEGLECT... THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF...