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
PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT.
THE VALIDITY OF A GUILTY PLEA IS NOT PROPERLY RAISED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AFTER THE AFFIRMANCE OF A LEGAL SENTENCE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION; WHERE THE SENTENCE IS LEGAL, AN EXCESSIVE-SENTENCE CLAIM IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION CANNOT ASSERT THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DEFENSE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE ACCIDENT INVOLVED A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION BUS AND OCCURRED IN NEW YORK CITY (CT APP). ​
Damages for Breach of Purchase Contract Are Measured by the Difference Between the Purchase Price and the Market Value at Time of Breach
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH RAISES FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, THE BUILDING IS LEASED TO A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH PROVIDES DIALYSIS; THE LEASED BUILDING, THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAX PURSUANT TO RPTL 420-A (CT APP).
THE LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE ASSAILANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE WAS NOT AN INTRUDER AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE, THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTED (CT APP).
2ND DEPT USED THE WRONG STANDARD FOR APPLYING THE CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE EXEMPTION TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, CASE REMITTED, PETITIONER SOUGHT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO A REVIEW OF HIS SEX OFFENSE CASE WHICH WAS PROSECUTED AMID NATIONWIDE HYSTERIA OVER ALLEGATIONS OF RITUAL ABUSE AT DAY CARE CENTERS (CT APP).
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE A WEAPON WAS IN THE CAR; THE SEARCH OF THE CAR AND SEIZURE OF A WEAPON FROM AN OPEN PURSE IN THE BACK SEAT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST 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

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