Comments on: THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Comments on: THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2026/03/20/the-fact-that-defendant-was-parked-in-a-high-crime-area-near-an-apartment-complex-and-the-filed-trespass-affidavit-by-an-apartment-property-manager-requesting-that-anyone-on-the-property-who-was/ Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:16:31 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4