People v. Bulvard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bulvard

213 A.D.2d 263, 624 N.Y.S.2d 23

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 263 (People v. Bulvard) 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. Bulvard, 213 A.D.2d 263, 624 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), entered November 24, 1993, granting defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the police observation of defendant making an innocuous hand movement while sitting in the passenger seat of a car double parked in a drug prone area did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, so as to justify defendant’s forcible detention by the police (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223).

There being no evidence that the automobile in question was stolen, defendant’s sole occupancy thereof and possession of the car keys established that defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car and its trunk (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351). As the illegal seizure of defendant precipitated the seizure of the automobile, which in turn led to the discovery of contraband in the trunk of the car and to defendant’s statements, the hearing court properly suppressed the physical evidence and statements as the tainted fruits of the illegal police action (People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514, 521). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), entered November 24, 1993, granting defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the police observation of defendant making an innocuous hand movement while sitting in the passenger seat of a car double parked in a drug prone area did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, so as to justify defendant’s forcible detention by the police (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223).

There being no evidence that the automobile in question was stolen, defendant’s sole occupancy thereof and possession of the car keys established that defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car and its trunk (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351). As the illegal seizure of defendant precipitated the seizure of the automobile, which in turn led to the discovery of contraband in the trunk of the car and to defendant’s statements, the hearing court properly suppressed the physical evidence and statements as the tainted fruits of the illegal police action (People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514, 521). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 263, 624 N.Y.S.2d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bulvard-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack