People v. Diggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diggs

264 A.D.2d 663, 695 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9571

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 663 (People v. Diggs) 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. Diggs, 264 A.D.2d 663, 695 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (M.arcy Kahn, J., at hearing; James Yates, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 5, 1998, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree and auto stripping in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of IV2 to 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

[664]*664Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. We agree with the hearing court that defendant did not sustain his burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the briefcase searched. The arresting officers observed defendant and a companion standing near a car with a broken window, in an area with a high incidence of auto thefts. The officers saw defendant’s companion throw a black object into the car when the two men noticed the police presence. When apprehended, defendant was carrying a briefcase which appeared to have been forced open. Under these circumstances, where the police had reason to suspect that the briefcase was stolen, and defendant denied ownership, he lacked a privacy interest in the briefcase (see, People v Metz, 168 AD2d 515, 516). Defendant failed to establish that society in general would recognize his expectation of privacy as reasonable under the circumstances (see, People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108-109). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (M.arcy Kahn, J., at hearing; James Yates, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 5, 1998, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree and auto stripping in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of IV2 to 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

[664]*664Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. We agree with the hearing court that defendant did not sustain his burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the briefcase searched. The arresting officers observed defendant and a companion standing near a car with a broken window, in an area with a high incidence of auto thefts. The officers saw defendant’s companion throw a black object into the car when the two men noticed the police presence. When apprehended, defendant was carrying a briefcase which appeared to have been forced open. Under these circumstances, where the police had reason to suspect that the briefcase was stolen, and defendant denied ownership, he lacked a privacy interest in the briefcase (see, People v Metz, 168 AD2d 515, 516). Defendant failed to establish that society in general would recognize his expectation of privacy as reasonable under the circumstances (see, People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108-109). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 663, 695 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diggs-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack