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
Intoxication Jury Instruction Was Warranted, Conviction Reversed
THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS FATAL TO THE LAWSUIT; ALLEGING THE FLOOR WAS SHINY OR SLIPPERY IS NOT ENOUGH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S REPEATED FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE CONTINUATION OF HER DEPOSITION WAS WILLFUL, STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE STORM, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered
Remainderman Was Entitled to the Tax and Insurance Payments Made on Behalf of the Holder of the Life Estate/Life Estate Should Have Been Extinguished as a Matter of Equity
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Where Plaintiff’s Vehicle Repaired to Pre-Accident Condition, No Additional Recovery for Diminution in Resale Value

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...