Matter of Ali S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ali S.

133 A.D.3d 427, 18 N.Y.S.3d 535

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket16069

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 427 (Matter of Ali S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Ali S., 133 A.D.3d 427, 18 N.Y.S.3d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about December 12, 2013, which dismissed the petition and brings up for review an order (same court, Judge and date), which granted respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion to suppress denied, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The presentment agency’s appeal from the final written order of dismissal brings up for review the court’s oral suppression ruling (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Matter of Shariff H., 112 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2013]).

The court erred in granting respondent’s suppression motion. Probable cause was established by an officer’s observation in plain view of what appeared to be khat, a plant likely to contain a controlled substance. The officer, who was of Middle Eastern background, had encountered khat on several occasions as a child, had received police training regarding khat, had been involved in arrests relating to khat, and had even instructed on the subject at the police academy. She specified her ability to identify khat by its dried green leaves and odor of “rotten vegetables” or “rotten grass.” The record fails to support the court’s conclusion that the officer’s ability to recognize khat was insufficient to establish probable cause. Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about December 12, 2013, which dismissed the petition and brings up for review an order (same court, Judge and date), which granted respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion to suppress denied, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The presentment agency’s appeal from the final written order of dismissal brings up for review the court’s oral suppression ruling (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Matter of Shariff H., 112 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2013]).

The court erred in granting respondent’s suppression motion. Probable cause was established by an officer’s observation in plain view of what appeared to be khat, a plant likely to contain a controlled substance. The officer, who was of Middle Eastern background, had encountered khat on several occasions as a child, had received police training regarding khat, had been involved in arrests relating to khat, and had even instructed on the subject at the police academy. She specified her ability to identify khat by its dried green leaves and odor of “rotten vegetables” or “rotten grass.” The record fails to support the court’s conclusion that the officer’s ability to recognize khat was insufficient to establish probable cause. Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 427, 18 N.Y.S.3d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ali-s-nyappdiv-2015.