You are here: / / AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S...
,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED UPON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY HE WAS QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the traffic stop was proper (inoperable brake light) but the search of defendant’s person, based on the odor of marijuana, was not:

… [T]he officer’s testimony was insufficient to establish that there was probable cause for the search of the defendant’s person. As the law existed in 2020, “the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, [was alone] sufficient to constitute probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, however, the officer did not testify that he had any training or experience in detecting the odor of marihuana … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. People v McLeod, 2025 NY Slip Op 01108, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Under the law as it was in 2020, the search of a person could be justified by the odor of marijuana, but only if the officer was qualified by training and experience to recognize the odor of marijuana. Here the officer did not testify he was qualified to recognize the odor of marihuana. Therefore, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

You might also like
IN A HYBRID ACTION SEEKING AN ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (AND DAMAGES), THE BURDENS TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING ARE DIFFERENT; IN AN ARTICLE 78 THE PETITIONER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE STANDING; AND IN A DECLARTORY-JUDGMENT/DAMAGES ACTION, THE RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT) MUST DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STEP WAS MARKED AND THERE WAS A WARNING SIGN, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE STEP AND THE SIGN COULD NOT BE SEEN WHEN THE AREA WAS CROWDED; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIR-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS FOR DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CONTINUED DETENTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN THE HALL OF A SCHOOL AND THE GLASS SHATTERED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND SOME OF THE PANELS IN THE DISPLAY CASE WERE MADE OF SHATTERPROOF PLEXIGLASS; PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES-LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING... SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS WHICH REPEAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT...