People v. Berberena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Berberena

264 A.D.2d 670, 696 N.Y.S.2d 116

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 670 (People v. Berberena) 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

People v. Berberena, 264 A.D.2d 670, 696 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendants’ suppression motions were properly granted. The officers were justified in stopping defendants’ vehicle for a traffic violation, but in the absence of any suspicious circumstances other than allegedly nervous behavior of a minimal and equivocal nature, the police did not have a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot sufficient to justify their clearly accusatory inquiry and their request for consent to search the vehicle’s trunk where the weapon was recovered (see, People v Barreras, 253 AD2d 369; see also, People v Banks, 85 NY2d 558, cert denied 516 US 868). We note the request to search the trunk occurred after the officers completed their examination of the vehicle and found no contraband. Even were we to accept the People’s argument that the police request to search the trunk was the result of defendants’ invitation, we would find that this invitation followed the officers’ unauthorized inquiry (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185) as to the presence of contraband in the car. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendants’ suppression motions were properly granted. The officers were justified in stopping defendants’ vehicle for a traffic violation, but in the absence of any suspicious circumstances other than allegedly nervous behavior of a minimal and equivocal nature, the police did not have a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot sufficient to justify their clearly accusatory inquiry and their request for consent to search the vehicle’s trunk where the weapon was recovered (see, People v Barreras, 253 AD2d 369; see also, People v Banks, 85 NY2d 558, cert denied 516 US 868). We note the request to search the trunk occurred after the officers completed their examination of the vehicle and found no contraband. Even were we to accept the People’s argument that the police request to search the trunk was the result of defendants’ invitation, we would find that this invitation followed the officers’ unauthorized inquiry (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185) as to the presence of contraband in the car. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 670, 696 N.Y.S.2d 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berberena-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack