Matter of Kenneth S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Kenneth S.

121 A.D.3d 593, 995 N.Y.S.2d 47

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2014

Docket13323

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 593 (Matter of Kenneth 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 Kenneth S., 121 A.D.3d 593, 995 N.Y.S.2d 47 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*594 Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unlawful possession of an air pistol, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. The police lawfully detained appellant as a suspected truant (Matter of Shannon B., 70 NY2d 458 [1987]). In the course of this detention, the police lawfully patted down appellant’s book bag, particularly since as appellant approached the police car, the bag hit the car, making a distinctive metallic sound that the officer recognized as the sound of a firearm. In patting down the bag, an officer felt the distinctive shape of a pistol, including its grip and trigger guard. The warrantless search of the bag, after appellant had been handcuffed and placed in the police car, was justified by close spatial and temporal proximity, as well as by exigent circumstances (see People v Jimenez, 22 NY3d 717 [2014]; People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 946 [1998]). These circumstances included the fact that defendant resisted arrest, the officers’ knowledge that appellant was on probation in connection with a past robbery and that he had resisted arrest before, the officers’ high level of certainty that the bag actually contained a weapon, and the danger of appellant reaching the bag, despite being handcuffed, while seated in the police car next to the officer who had the bag.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*594 Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unlawful possession of an air pistol, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. The police lawfully detained appellant as a suspected truant (Matter of Shannon B., 70 NY2d 458 [1987]). In the course of this detention, the police lawfully patted down appellant’s book bag, particularly since as appellant approached the police car, the bag hit the car, making a distinctive metallic sound that the officer recognized as the sound of a firearm. In patting down the bag, an officer felt the distinctive shape of a pistol, including its grip and trigger guard. The warrantless search of the bag, after appellant had been handcuffed and placed in the police car, was justified by close spatial and temporal proximity, as well as by exigent circumstances (see People v Jimenez, 22 NY3d 717 [2014]; People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 946 [1998]). These circumstances included the fact that defendant resisted arrest, the officers’ knowledge that appellant was on probation in connection with a past robbery and that he had resisted arrest before, the officers’ high level of certainty that the bag actually contained a weapon, and the danger of appellant reaching the bag, despite being handcuffed, while seated in the police car next to the officer who had the bag.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 593, 995 N.Y.S.2d 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kenneth-s-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack