You are here: / / THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE;...
, ,

THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE; AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND A WEAPON; LATER THEY SEARCHED THE CAR AGAIN AND FOUND A SECOND WEAPON; ONLY AFTER THE SEARCHES DID THEY START TO FILL OUT THE INVENTORY SEARCH FORM; THIS WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the weapons seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop should have been suppressed. The police were looking for specific weapons in a specific car at the time of the search. Therefore the search could not be considered a valid inventory search:

… [T]he record reveals that the purported inventory search was actually a pretext to search for contraband. At the suppression hearing, the testimony and body-worn camera footage established that one of the officers who stopped defendant’s vehicle identified him and testified that defendant had, earlier that day, been identified as someone likely to be in possession of a weapon. Following the traffic stop and while defendant was being detained pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant, two other officers arrived on the scene. One of the arriving officers identified the vehicle defendant was driving as one that the police thought defendant would be using and would be keeping a weapon in. The other arriving officer promptly began searching the front passenger area of the vehicle; he opened the glove box and found a weapon, prompting a police officer to observe “oh, there it is.” At that point, another officer said “let’s check for the second one,” and shortly thereafter a second weapon was found in the same spot, precisely as predicted by that officer. * * *

Our conclusion is not based merely on the fact that, in conducting the first search, the “officers knew that contraband might be recovered” from the vehicle … . Rather, the evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the officers’ purpose in conducting the first search was to find specific weapons in a specific vehicle possessed by a specific person, i.e., defendant. We also note that the officers did not begin the second search until about ten minutes after the weapons were discovered, and it was only at that time that an officer began filling out an inventory search form. The facts that the inventory search form was not made contemporaneously with the first search, as required by Buffalo Police Department policy, and that it was incomplete to the extent it failed to note, as required, obvious damage to the vehicle, merely underscores and corroborates our conclusion that the first search of the vehicle was pretextual. People v Cunningham, 2025 NY Slip Op 03890, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that the police did not start filling out the inventory-search form until after two  searches of the vehicle had turned up weapons demonstrated the attempt to color the warrantless search as an inventory search was a ruse.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
Neglect Finding Based on Children’s Exposure to Bloody Domestic Violence Affirmed’ Requirements for Admission of Police Reports Explained
EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN ERRONEOUSLY PRONOUNCED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DEAD AND ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO REEXAMINE HIM FOR NEARLY THREE HOURS, DESPITE THE PLEAS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ALLEGEDLY SAW HIM BREATHING, MAKING EYE CONTACT AND MOVING; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED THE PARTIES FROM MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE; THE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT IN HIS BACKYARD AND AT THE HOSPITAL WAS INVESTIGATORY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THERE WAS A DETAILED, FACT-SPECIFIC DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LACK OF PREPARATION AND FAILURE TO LIMIT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE $1000 FINE FOR THE DWI COUNT WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE; THE FAILURE TO IMPOSE A FINE FOR AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION WAS ILLEGAL; REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A BREATH TEST IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

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

CLAIMANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM CONCERNING... A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING...