You are here: / / EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.

The Court of Appeals determined the warrantless search of appellant's backpack when appellant was handcuffed and seated in the police car was justified by exigent circumstances. Prior to searching the backpack, the officer had determined the presence of a weapon by feel. It is not clear from the facts described how “exigent circumstances”—stemming from a legitimate concern for officer safety—arose after the appellant was handcuffed:

When the touching revealed the shape of a gun in the bag, appellant was arrested. Appellant became agitated and upset, and resisted being handcuffed, such that two officers were required to handcuff him. Notably, the officers knew that on the occasion of appellant's prior arrest he had started to walk away while being handcuffed. By this time, a crowd had gathered, yelling at the officers, who placed appellant in their police vehicle. Once in the vehicle, one of the officers opened and searched the backpack. He found what was later confirmed to be an air pistol. Significantly, the unmarked police vehicle had no partition, and the officer who searched the bag was seated next to appellant on the back seat.

In these circumstances, there is record support for the conclusion that the officers reasonably believed that appellant might gain possession of a weapon, so that exigent circumstances — a legitimate concern about the safety of the arresting officers — justified the warrantless search of appellant's backpack. Matter of Kenneth S., 2016 NY Slip Op 02123, CtApp 3-24-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF BACKPACK)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF BACKPACK)

You might also like
A GENERIC NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN A CONTRACT DOES NOT TRANSFORM ALL NEW YORK STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS INTO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DID NOT MENTION BOND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION COULD NOT BE USED TO READ THE LIEN LAW REQUIREMENT INTO THE CONTRACT (CT APP).
Daily Incidents of Molestation, Spanning Years, Constituted “Separate Occurrences” Triggering a Deductible for Each Policy-Period
NO EVIDENCE JURY COULD SEE ORANGE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT PANTS WORN BY DEFENDANT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, DEFENDANT NOT DENIED A FAIR TRIAL.
THE MURDER COUNT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT SEEK PERMISSION TO RESUBMIT IT AFTER THE GRAND JURY DEADLOCKED ON THE CHARGE, DID NOT TAINT THE CONVICTION ON THE MANSLAUGHTER COUNT UNDER A SPILL-OVER ANALYSIS (CT APP).
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE COOPERATIVE OWNER, THE BOARD REFUSED TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DECEDENT’S “SPOUSE” WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S LEASE AND SHARES; THE MAJORITY, OVER TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS, DETERMINED THE BOARD’S REFUSAL TO TREAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS NOT MARRIED TO DECEDENT, AS A “SPOUSE” DID NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “MARITAL STATUS” (CT APP).
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
HERE THE COURT OF APPEALS CLARIFIED ITS DEFINITION OF “TESTIMONIAL” EVIDENCE; A FORM DOCUMENT USED TO COLLECT PEDIGREE INFORMATION FROM EVERY NYC ARRESTEE IS NOT “AN OUT-OF-COURT SUBSTITUTE FOR TRIAL TESTIMONY,” I.E., THE FORM DOCUMENT IS NOT “TESTIMONIAL” AND CAN BE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL AS A BUSINESS RECORD WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CREATOR OF THE DOCUMENT; HERE THE DOCUMENT INDICATED DEFENDANT LIVED IN THE BASEMENT AND WAS USED AT TRIAL TO PROVE HE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A WEAPON FOUND IN THE BASEMENT (CT APP). ​
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED ON A COMPUTER-GENERATED “SIMILARITY HIT;” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE BASIS OF THE “SIMILARITY HIT” WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THIS PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

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

NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING... PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT BASED UPON AN INVALID PERMIT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A VESTED...