You are here: / / THE DRUGS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN “PLAIN VIEW”...
,

THE DRUGS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN “PLAIN VIEW” IF THE POLICE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY DETAINED DEFENDANT OUTSIDE THE CAR BEFORE LOOKING INSIDE THE CAR; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing the indictment, over a three-judge dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his car should have been granted. The proof at the suppression hearing demonstrated the police observed innocent behavior in a parking lot which which was interpreted to be a drug transaction. As an officer approached, defendant got out of his car and walked toward the officer. The officer frisked the defendant and had him stand at the back of the car. The officer then looked in the car and saw cocaine on the seat. The car was then searched. The Fourth Department, over a two-judge dissent, held that the cocaine was in plain view and would have been seen had the officer simply walked up to the car without detaining the defendant. But the Court of Appeals held that the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement only applies if the police are acting lawfully at the time the observation was made. Here the police had illegally detained defendant before the observation:

The Appellate Division reasoned that, even if [Officer] Young had not detained defendant, he could have observed the contraband in plain view simply by walking up to the driver’s seat and looking into the vehicle … . However, this conclusion is unsupported because, had the officers not unlawfully detained defendant behind the car, defendant could have walked back, opened the car door and sat on the driver’s seat—actions that, contrary to the dissent’s unsupported assertions … , would have blocked Young’s view of the contraband….  Therefore, the prosecution failed to meet its burden to establish at the suppression hearing that the unlawful detention of defendant was not the reason that Young had an “unobstructed view of the driver’s seat” … . People v Messano, 2024 NY Slip Op 00097, CtApp 1-11-24

Practice Point: The “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement only applies if the police are acting lawfully at the time the observation is made—not the case here.

 

You might also like
Nonsignatory Could Not Be Compelled to Arbitrate Under Direct Benefit Estoppel Doctrine
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW BY ALLEGING HIS APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (60 DAYS INCARCERATION) WAS DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTION (CT APP).
Failure to Exercise Peremptory Challenge Not Ineffective Assistance
THE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED AT TRIAL BUT REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE NEVER ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING ONESELF OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY ACTING AS A “LEGAL ADVISOR” TO THE DEFENDANT AND AN ATTORNEY WHO “REPRESENTS” THE DEFENDANT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED TO REPEAT PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).
UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED DEFENDANT GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR AND HANDCUFFED HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH, MADE AFTER MIRANDA WARNINGS, WAS NOT TAINTED BY THE UNWARNED CUSTODIAL QUESTIONING; DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUIONAL CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK’S GUN LICENSING REGIME WERE NOT PRESERVED (CT APP). ​
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP).
NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING, WAIVER BY COUNSEL NOT SUFFICIENT.
Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions

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

​ALL AGREED A MULTIPLICITOUS COUNT SHOULD BE DISMISSED; THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED... PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW A...