You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY...
,

ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY THE DEFENDANT AT A LOCATION KNOWN FOR DRUG ACTIVITY, THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE ANY PROPERTY OR CURRENCY CHANGE HANDS AND DID NOT FIND ANY DRUGS OR CURRENCY ON THE DEFENDANT OR THE TWO MEN WITH HIM ON THE STREET; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE HEROIN SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND IN THE POLICE CAR AND DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE HAD “DITCHED” THE DRUGS IN THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin found in back seat of a police car and his statement that he had “ditched” the drugs in the car should have been suppressed because the arresting officer did not have probable cause at the time of defendant’s arrest. The officer had observed defendant engage in what appeared to the officer to be drug transactions on the street. But when the officer approached the defendant and two others on the street no drugs or currency were found. The defendant had been handcuffed and was subsequently arrested for loitering:

Detective Petrucci did not have probable cause to reasonably believe that the defendant was committing, or had committed, a crime, at any point prior to the defendant’s arrest (see id.). Detective Petrucci testified that he arrested the defendant on the basis of the defendant’s purported commission of loitering in the first degree, which is defined as “loiter[ing] or remain[ing] in any place with one or more persons for the purpose of unlawfully using or possessing a controlled substance” (Penal Law § 240.36). However, there was no testimony at the suppression hearing that the defendant had “remained” in any place with the other individuals with whom he interacted. The interactions between the defendant and the other individuals were described at the hearing as “quick,” “fluid,” and lasting approximately one minute. * * *

Detective Petrucci did not observe any physical property or currency being handled by the defendant or exchanged between the defendant and either Flores or Mugaburu prior to approaching the defendant, and did not otherwise recover any drugs or currency from the defendant, Flores, or Mugaburu prior to the defendant’s arrest. Contrary to the People’s contention, the observations that Detective Petrucci did make—several brief, nondescript interactions involving the defendant at an address known to the police for past drug activity—were not a sufficient basis for Detective Petrucci to form a reasonable belief that a narcotics offense was occurring or had been committed. People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 00878, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

You might also like
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATE HAS NOT PREEMPTED A MUNICIPALITY’S ABILITY TO REGULATE THE PROCESSING OF WASTE; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE HAD ISSUED A PERMIT ALLOWING THE PROCESSING OF 500 TONS OF WASTE PER DAY, THE VILLAGE’S ACTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REDUCING THE ALLOWED AMOUNT OF WASTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MASTER ARBITRATOR’S AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, REVIEW POWERS OF MASTER ARBITRATOR AND COURT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
COMMENCING A LAWSUIT, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED OR CLEARED OF ICE AND SNOW DURING THE TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

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

IN THIS CASE INVOLVING A FATAL CAR ACCIDENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY “RACING”... THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENHANCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BASED...