People v. Dentine

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dentine

237 N.E.2d 361, 21 N.Y.2d 971, 290 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1483

DecidedApril 10, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 237 N.E.2d 361 (People v. Dentine) 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. Dentine, 237 N.E.2d 361, 21 N.Y.2d 971, 290 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1483 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of [972]*972defendant under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Defendant argued that certain testimony admitted against him was a derivative product of an illegal search and must be suppressed as an exploitation of the primary illegality. The Court of Appeals considered this argument and concluded that there was no denial of defendant’s rights since the connection between the search and the testimony was “ so attenuated as to dissipate the taint ” (Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341). [See 21 N Y 2d 700.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of [972]*972defendant under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Defendant argued that certain testimony admitted against him was a derivative product of an illegal search and must be suppressed as an exploitation of the primary illegality. The Court of Appeals considered this argument and concluded that there was no denial of defendant’s rights since the connection between the search and the testimony was “ so attenuated as to dissipate the taint ” (Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341). [See 21 N Y 2d 700.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 N.E.2d 361, 21 N.Y.2d 971, 290 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dentine-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack