You are here: / / THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY...
,

THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, suppressing evidence seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, held the police had to “manipulate” the checks which were in plain view to determine they were forged. Because the nature of the checks was not apparent until they were “manipulated,” the “plain view” exception was not applicable:

… [W]e conclude that the People did not meet their burden of establishing the third element of the plain view exception—i.e., that the incriminating nature of the seized items was immediately apparent. In making such a determination, we must consider whether “the facts available to the [police] officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief . . . that [the] items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” … . This is a probable cause standard—i.e., there need not be “certainty or near certainty” about the incriminating nature of the seized items … . That element is not satisfied, however, “where the object [to be seized] must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined” … . Indeed, “[s]uch a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the [police] officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated” … . Still, “[a] truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a search” … . People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 05733, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the fact the checks were forged was not apparent until the police “manipulated” them. Therefore the “plain view” exception to the search-warrant requirement was not applicable and the checks should have been suppressed.

 

You might also like
THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE REQUIRED FACTORS WHEN SENTENCING DEFENDANT AFTER DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF INTERIM PROBATION; SENTENCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS 19 WHEN ARRSTED FOR HAVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON HIS PHONE, AND WHO HAD NEVER COMMITTED ANY OTHER OFFENSES, WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO SORA RISK-LEVEL ONE; COUNTY COURT APPLIED THE WRONG EVIDENTIARY STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).
Suppressed Statement Improperly Allowed to Be Used to Impeach Defendant—Defendant Did Not Open the Door for Use of the Statement by Contradicting It On Direct
Trial Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Testimony Based Upon Failure to Make Timely Disclosures— Rather, the Trial Should Have Been Adjourned
ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT INDICATED HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE CRIME TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY BUT THE JUDGE MADE NO FURTHER INQUIRY, THE PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY ENTERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Reversible Error to Instruct the Jury On an Affirmative Defense Over Defense Counsel’s Objection
PLAINTIFF WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE ARCHITECTS; THEREFORE THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ACCRUED WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE, RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
Multiplicitous Indictment Count Dismissed in the Interest of Justice.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE OR SHE WOULD HOLD THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AGAINST... PLAINTIFF’S BRINGING MULTIPLE MERITLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND...