You are here: / / THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED...
,

THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED; IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL AND APPEAL WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no justification for the “consent-to-search” probation condition. Defendant stole a cab driver’s cell phone and pled guilty to attempted assault. The court noted it was not necessary to preserve the error for appeal and appeal was not prohibited by the waiver of appeal:

The probation department [requested] that as a condition of probation, the defendant be required to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm or other weapon, or other contraband found (Condition No. 28). At sentencing, the Supreme Court imposed the consent to search condition of probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that this condition of his probation was improperly imposed.

The defendant correctly argues, and the People do not dispute, that this issue was not required to be preserved for appellate review, and that appellate review is not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal … .

… [T]he defendant was a first-time offender and was not armed with a weapon at the time he committed the offense. While the defendant told the probation department that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense, he was not assessed as being in need of alcohol or substance abuse treatment. Under the circumstances, the consent to search condition of probation was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law abiding life … . People v Dranchuk, 2022 NY Slip Op 01312, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60, NOT CPL 330.30; THEREFORE THE “OUTSIDE THE RECORD” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROPERLY DENIED, BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).
Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

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 SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF A DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE; THEREFORE... THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF...