People v. Codrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Codrington

30 A.D.3d 355, 818 N.Y.S.2d 200

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

DecidedJune 29, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 355 (People v. Codrington) 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. Codrington, 30 A.D.3d 355, 818 N.Y.S.2d 200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered December 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the gun that was recovered from the bag he was carrying as he tried to enter Central Fark during a parade. The bag-search checkpoint at issue, the primary goal of which was to prevent alcoholic beverages from being brought into the park in light of the drunkenness, accompanied by alcohol-related violence and other misconduct, that occurred in the park during past parades, fell within the special needs exception to the prohibition against suspicionless searches and was not implemented to uncover general criminality (see MacWade v Kelly, 2005 WL 3338573, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 39695 [2005]; see also People v Jackson, 99 NY2d 125 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered December 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the gun that was recovered from the bag he was carrying as he tried to enter Central Fark during a parade. The bag-search checkpoint at issue, the primary goal of which was to prevent alcoholic beverages from being brought into the park in light of the drunkenness, accompanied by alcohol-related violence and other misconduct, that occurred in the park during past parades, fell within the special needs exception to the prohibition against suspicionless searches and was not implemented to uncover general criminality (see MacWade v Kelly, 2005 WL 3338573, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 39695 [2005]; see also People v Jackson, 99 NY2d 125 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 355, 818 N.Y.S.2d 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-codrington-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack