You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S CLOTHES BY A DETECTIVE AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE DEFENDANT WAS BEING TREATED FOR A GUNSHOT WOUND; THE CLOTHES AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CLOTHES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s clothes seized at the hospital where defendant was being treated for a gunshot wound should have been suppressed. The error was deemed harmless however:

The defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his clothing, and the fact that the police perceived the defendant as a victim rather than a suspect at the time his clothing was seized did not strip the defendant of his Fourth Amendment protection … . Moreover, the People failed to establish that the testifying detective knew that the clothes would have covered the part of the defendant’s body where he was shot, as the detective admitted that he did not know what type of clothing was in the bag that was seized … . The People also failed to establish any exigent circumstances to justify seizure of the clothing, as they provided no evidence that the clothing was in danger of being removed or destroyed … . Accordingly, the seizure of the defendant’s clothing at the hospital was illegal, and the DNA evidence obtained from the items seized should not have been admitted into evidence at trial … . People v Gough, 2022 NY Slip Op 01317, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

You might also like
No Need to Demonstrate Detrimental Reliance to Recover for Misconduct by Notary Public 
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE DID NOT HAVE HIS EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE TRUCK INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER’S INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE (THIRD DEPT).
THE DENTISTS’ FEE-SPLITTING AGREEMENT VIOLATED THE EDUCATION LAW; A COURT WILL NOT ENFORCE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE “DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE” OF A MOTION FOR A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THAT DEFENDANT WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE VICTIM DIED BY STRANGULATION; THE DEFENSE WAS DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO KILL; THE VICTIM’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW THE DEFENDANT’S, AS OPPOSED TO THE VICTIM’S, STATE OF MIND; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER’S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND 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

THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO THE... SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS RE: WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD...