People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daniels

275 A.D.2d 1006, 714 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9553

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1006 (People v. Daniels) 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. Daniels, 275 A.D.2d 1006, 714 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his van is without merit. The officer was authorized to stop defendant’s vehicle based on her receipt of information from the dispatcher that the van had recently been involved in criminal activity at a car wash in Bloomfield (see generally, People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 564). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the police had probable cause to arrest him based on complainant’s identification. Finally, defendant’s van was properly searched. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement authorizes the search of a vehicle when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of a crime or a weapon (see, People v Goss, 204 AD2d 984, 985, lv denied 84 NY2d 826). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Mischief, 4th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his van is without merit. The officer was authorized to stop defendant’s vehicle based on her receipt of information from the dispatcher that the van had recently been involved in criminal activity at a car wash in Bloomfield (see generally, People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 564). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the police had probable cause to arrest him based on complainant’s identification. Finally, defendant’s van was properly searched. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement authorizes the search of a vehicle when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of a crime or a weapon (see, People v Goss, 204 AD2d 984, 985, lv denied 84 NY2d 826). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Mischief, 4th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1006, 714 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-daniels-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack