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
Notifying One’s Broker of an Accident Does Not Constitute Notification of the Insurer
THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE DISCHARGED JUST PRIOR TO THE LUNCH BREAK; A PROBLEM WITH A SITTING JUROR AROSE DURING THE BREAK AND THE JUROR WAS REMOVED; DELIBERATIONS HAD NOT YET BEGUN BUT THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE; THE JUDGE THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE RECALLED ONE OF THE ALTERNATE JURORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) RENT-OVERCHARGE SUIT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
MONITORING AND RECORDING PHONE CALLS MADE BY PRETRIAL DETAINEES WHO ARE NOTIFIED THE CALLS ARE MONITORED AND RECORDED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE RECORDINGS MAY BE SHARED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS WITHOUT A WARRANT (CT APP).
Rent-Stabilized Apartment Lease Is Exempt from the Bankruptcy Estate
Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding
Experts’ Use of Unreliable Hearsay in Article 10 Trial Violated Due Process

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

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