-
44 A.D.2d 86 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York March 25, 1974
The search of the garage *88 revealed 1,435 cartons of untaxed cigarettes (i.e., they had no New York State tax stamp affixed). Two hundred of these cartons were found in the trunk of the car.
Similar incredulity attaches to the alleged observation of the gun under the driver’s seat of the car. Again, it is found under the driver’s seat, with the butt protruding from an open-ended bag on the floor of a darkened car.
It may well ibe that agent Murphy had information from a reliable source which, coupled with what he believably saw, would justify the arrest.
-
89 A.D.2d 987 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York September 13, 1982
A tow truck was called and while another officer safeguarded the vehicle, defendant was removed to police headquarters.
Since the search of the passenger compartment and case occurred over one-half hour after the defendant had been transported to police headquarters, the search was not contemporaneously incidental to the arrest (cf.
Beside the fact that the search was not contemporaneous with the arrest, the prosecution and defense witnesses did not allege any circumstances to give the officers “reason to believe that the car may contain evidence related to the
-
68 A.D.3d 1544 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 31, 2009
Investigators in one car tracked defendant’s movements on a laptop computer and relayed information to the other car so it could follow defendant’s car without being observed by defendant.
A search revealed bundles of cash in the pockets of defendant’s coat and pants, as well as a crowbar under some clothing in the car, and defendant was arrested.
his car without a warrant.
-
76 A.D.2d 670 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York September 22, 1980
In response to those signals and without stopping his car, Zackavich immediately drove out of the station and around the corner onto Taft Avenue.
The usual police response will be to conduct a frisk, patting the individual’s clothing in search of a weapon. (E.g., Terry v Ohio, supra; People v Mack, 26 NY2d 311 .)
And we do not perceive that any constitutional provision would require a lone officer to approach two suspected armed robbers who are seated in a car without drawing his own weapon.
-
43 A.D.2d 260 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York January 10, 1974
Thus, where there is a reasonable belief before the search begins that an automobile contains contraband or evidence of a crime, this constitutes probable cause and a search of the vehicle may lawfully proceed without a warrant (People
We would further emphasize that it is “ only in exigent circumstances ” where the judgment of the police will serve as “ sufficient authorization for a? search ” without a warrant (Chambers v. Maroney, supra, p. 51 ).
a warrant must be obtained.”
-
48 A.D.2d 213 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York May 30, 1975
Although the vehicle was safely held in the police garage and the police had ample time to seek a warrant to search it, they forced the trunk open with a crowbar without obtaining a warrant; and they found therein *216 14 blocks of
of 'an automobile stopped on the highway’, where there is probable cause, because the car is 'movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car’s contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained’ ” (ibid., p 460).
The contention that since the vehicle was used in committing the crime of reckless endangerment, it was subject to search without a warrant has no merit (People v Spinelli, 35 NY2d 77 ).
-
2016 NY Slip Op 8887 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 28, 2016 No. 2014-04119
Moreover, although many people would allow the police to search their homes when the police arrived in response to such notifications, a search was not a “requirement” of the Nassau County Police Department.
After the defendant was handcuffed and put into a police car, the police went through the house. No one was there. The police obtained a search warrant.
Under that doctrine, police officers “may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury” (Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403 [2006]; see
-
246 A.D.2d 366 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York January 15, 1998
While the suppression court properly suppressed defendant’s first statement, made in the police car without the benefit of Miranda warnings, as the product of police inducement (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294-295 ; People v
While location alone will not justify a search, “the nature and location of the area where a suspect is detained may be one of the factors considered in determining whether, in a given case, the police acted reasonably” (People v Bronston
As to defendant’s statement at police headquarters, since the search of defendant was warranted, the statement in question is not the fruit of an unlawful search (People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 486-487 ).
-
43 A.D.2d 150 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 10, 1973
The Wisconsin court invalidated the subsequent warrantless search and condemned the police ‘ ‘ re-entry ’ ’ without a compelling reason for failing to obtain a warrant.
The warrant was validly issued and the police were authorized to search the car.
Under such circumstances, the search of the car may be deemed to have been undertaken with the consent of the defendant, without regard to the claimed limited scope of the search warrant.
-
52 A.D.2d 425 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York June 10, 1976
With respect to the suppression motion the evidence showed that two police officers, Kelly and Iacovone, on May 20, 1972 at about 10:20 p.m. while on radio patrol drove past a parked car around which several people were congregating
All that happened was that the police officers approached the car without guns in their hands, and the codefendant got out of the car.
passing car, this would not constitute a search.
-
19 A.D.3d 32 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York April 14, 2005Cited by 26 Dissent · Ellerin
To the extent that a person who stops his or her car beside a hydrant may be asked by a police officer to move the car away from the hydrant, that person may be said to be “inviting police attention.”
Persaud stands for the proposition that in directing a person sitting in the passenger seat to move a car, *56 without inquiring as to whether the person is licensed to drive, a police officer may be acting negligently, for which
Absent such reason, as was here the case at the time Officer Bombolino initially approached defendant, the police officer may not, without more, demand the driver’s license of a person seated at the wheel of a car stopped near a hydrant
-
58 A.D.2d 655 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York June 20, 1977
The police car pulled up to them and the arresting officer shouted: "Police, don’t move”, while he and his two partners held the defendant and his companion at gunpoint.
Upon the record, it is inescapably clear that when the police car pulled up to the defendant, and three police officers quickly emerged, guns drawn, one stating, "Police, don’t move”, the defendant was subjected to a forcible seizure
a full 15 minutes prior to the search.
-
129 A.D.3d 1207 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York June 11, 2015 No. 106311
Initially, we agree with County Court that a Darden hearing was not necessary inasmuch as probable cause for the search warrant was established, in part, by the independent observations of the police (see People v Farrow, 98
The search warrant at issue stemmed from two con *1208 trolled purchases of crack cocaine, orchestrated by police and involving the use of a confidential informant (hereinafter the Cl).
* In his search warrant application, and during his in-court examination at a Mapp hearing, Detective James Wood of the City of Albany Police Department explained that both buys had been electronically monitored via a live
-
218 A.D.2d 167 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York February 26, 1996
Under the Federal Constitution, it is clear that a parolee or a probationer may be arrested in his home without a judicial warrant (e.g., United *172 States v Cardona, 903 F2d 60 [1st Cir], cert denied 498 US 1049 ; United States
, a warrant to search the apartment.
In Steagald (supra), the Supreme Court held that a valid warrant for the arrest of one person may not serve as the basis for authorizing police to conduct an otherwise illegal search of the premises of a second person.
-
297 A.D.2d 590 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York September 26, 2002
In Berberena , upon observing the defendant’s “minimal and equivocal” nervous behavior, the police asked accusatory questions and — unlike Officer Regan herein — asked for permission to search the car.
The police, also unlike here, asked repeated questions about whether defendant had specific types of contraband in the car, asking also if they could search the car.
police were justified in searching the car pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (id.; see also People v Langen, supra at 180-181).
-
101 A.D.2d 294 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York May 7, 1984
The question to be decided on this appeal is whether defendant consented to a search by the police of the trunk of defendant’s daughter’s car. In our view, the question must be decided in the affirmative.
Defendant moved before Criminal Term to suppress, inter alia, weapons and ammunition found as a result of an alleged illegal search by the police of the trunk of defendant’s daughter’s car.
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer and Boyers, JJ., concur. Judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 6, 1983, affirmed.
-
60 A.D.3d 1209 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York March 19, 2009
Suppression was also not required for the physical evidence obtained by police. The photographs of defendant’s apartment and car were admissible.
Taking photographs to memorialize *1212 the scene of a warrant-authorized, search did not constitute any additional invasion of privacy, nor violate any of defendant’s rights (see People v Spencer, 272 AD2d 682, 683 [2000], lv denied
Although the police admittedly seized and towed defendant’s car without a warrant, they only secured the car and did not search it until a warrant was obtained. That warrant was not based upon the seizure.
-
181 A.D.2d 474 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York March 10, 1992
In the course of executing a search warrant, Officer Berrios recovered the tampon and an apparently blood-stained quilt.
While the instant case may not warrant a finding of emergency, the facts support a finding of exigent circumstances (see, People v Boyd, 123 Misc 2d 634 , affd without opn 127 AD2d 1013 ).
In view of such finding, the *477 information obtained by the police from observations while in the apartment constitutes a sufficient basis for issuance of a search warrant, and the evidence obtained upon its execution was legally
-
153 A.D.2d 320 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York February 2, 1990
Moreover, *323 although under certain circumstances a police officer who has validly arrested an occupant of an automobile may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment including any containers found therein, this right is
limited only to situations where the police "have reason to believe that the car may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted” (People
Moreover, it is important to recall that searches conducted without a warrant and without prior approval of a detached and neutral Magistrate are per se unreasonable (see, Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 454-455 ).
-
106 A.D.2d 527 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 17, 1984
County police officers, Sergeant Billelo and Police Officer Bless.
Upon arriving at the scene in a marked patrol car, the officers observed, from a distance of about a half block away, a car without its lights on pull out of a closed gas station at a high rate of speed.
Thus in many cases, such as the one at bar, there may be sufficient evidence to prove the intent to use the weapon unlawfully but not enough evidence to prove a second crime.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.