People v. Costales

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Costales

354 N.E.2d 849, 39 N.Y.2d 973, 387 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2915

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 6, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 354 N.E.2d 849 (People v. Costales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Costales, 354 N.E.2d 849, 39 N.Y.2d 973, 387 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2915 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, the motion to suppress granted, the judgment of conviction vacated, and the indictment dismissed.

Of the many issues raised by defendant, only one merits the reversal he seeks. The search of defendant’s raincoat, merely because it fell with a thud to the floor, was not justified. The immediate detention of defendant for questioning and identification was justified by his entry into the raided apartment, the scene of a narcotics enterprise then being investigated under a valid search warrant. But defendant was not named in the warrant and his seeking entry into the apartment justified no more than the questioning to which he was subjected. The raincoat itself was not a cause of suspicion. The fact that it evidently contained a heavy object, absent any evidence suggesting or tending to show that it contained contraband or dangerous object, did not warrant any palpation or interior search of its pockets. (See People v Smith, 21 NY2d 698, 700.)

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

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, the motion to suppress granted, the judgment of conviction vacated, and the indictment dismissed.

Of the many issues raised by defendant, only one merits the reversal he seeks. The search of defendant’s raincoat, merely because it fell with a thud to the floor, was not justified. The immediate detention of defendant for questioning and identification was justified by his entry into the raided apartment, the scene of a narcotics enterprise then being investigated under a valid search warrant. But defendant was not named in the warrant and his seeking entry into the apartment justified no more than the questioning to which he was subjected. The raincoat itself was not a cause of suspicion. The fact that it evidently contained a heavy object, absent any evidence suggesting or tending to show that it contained contraband or dangerous object, did not warrant any palpation or interior search of its pockets. (See People v Smith, 21 NY2d 698, 700.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 N.E.2d 849, 39 N.Y.2d 973, 387 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-costales-ny-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack