You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S FANNY PACK WAS...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S FANNY PACK WAS A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions for tampering with evidence and resisting arrest, determined the search of defendant’s fanny pack was not demonstrated to have been a valid search incident to arrest:

The People failed to demonstrate that the search of defendant’s fanny pack was a proper search incident to a lawful arrest because they failed to establish either that the officer actually arrested defendant or intended to do so before opening his bag … . People v Lamberty, 2024 NY Slip Op 06669, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: Here the People did not prove the officer who searched defendant’s fanny pack actually arrested defendant or intended to arrest the defendant before opening pack. Therefore the People did not prove the search was a valid search incident to arrest.

You might also like
Cross-Examination of People’s Witness About Her Past Status as a Confidential Informant Properly Precluded—Status Ended a Year Before and Witness Had Legitimate Safety Concerns
School’s Knowledge that Infant-Plaintiff Was Being Taunted and Bullied Did Not Constitute Notice that Another Student Would Act Violently Toward Infant-Plaintiff—Supervision Could Not Have Prevented the Sudden Action by the Student Who Pushed Infant-Plaintiff
THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY.
LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
Contract Provision Protected Contractee from Damages for Delay Caused by Regulators​
INFORMATION ALLEGED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE REVEALED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS AT A TIME WHICH RENDERED THE CURRENT FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ACTION TIME-BARRED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A DISMISSAL AT THE PLEADING STAGE.
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED.

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 PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO AGREE TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON,... THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION...