You are here: / / SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA...
,

SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the search of defendant’s car was a valid inventory search:

The critical issue in this case is whether the officers’ search of the car, which was conducted back at the police district headquarters and not at the arrest location, was a legitimate inventory search. We conclude that it was. The People introduced a copy of the relevant patrol guide section outlining the procedures for inventory searches. Everything was removed from the car, under the direction of a sergeant, and even items such as nail clippers were vouchered. A contemporaneous list was made of the items that were removed, and the list was introduced at the hearing. Copies of property clerk invoices also were admitted in evidence at the hearing. The testimony at the hearing established that the officers did not exercise discretion in removing items from the car, and that the search was not a ruse to recover incriminating evidence … . People v Lee, 2016 NY Slip Op 07081, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/INVENTORY SEARCH (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
Excessive Intervention by Trial Judge Required New Trial
Declaratory Judgment, Not Mandamus, Was Proper Vehicle for Determining Whether a Town Was Obligated to Repair a Bridge
A RESTITUTION HEARING IS REQUIRED WHEN (1) THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS IT, AND (2) WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHDREW, THE JUDGE SET A DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR WITH NEW COUNSEL; WHEN THE DEADLINE PASSED, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY FOR THE “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Two Options to Recover on Note and Mortgage; One in Law (Note); One in Equity (Foreclosure)

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

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING... FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE STATUTORY FACTORS, FORUM NON CONVENIENS...