People v. Dolson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dolson

213 A.D.2d 996, 625 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3785

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 996 (People v. Dolson) 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. Dolson, 213 A.D.2d 996, 625 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant had been stopped for traffic violations when the arresting officer learned that a vehicle identical to defendant’s had just been involved in a drive-by shooting about two blocks away. Defendant and the three passengers were removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and placed in police vehicles. The police seized a gun found beneath the passenger seat. Defendant contends that the search was improper because it was not reasonably related to the need to protect officer safety, relying on People v Stewart (199 AD2d 1043, lv denied 83 NY2d 810) and People v Mullins (196 AD2d 894). The People contend that the search was proper pursuant to a lawful arrest for the drive-by shooting, relying on People v Belton (55 NY2d 49, 55, rearg denied 56 NY2d 646) and People v Acevedo (167 AD2d 891, lv denied 77 NY2d 875). The record supports the People’s contention.

We further conclude that the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle was justified (see, People v Scott, 210 AD2d 920) and that the inventory search was conducted pursuant to standardized procedure (cf., People v Acevedo-Sanchez, 212 AD2d 1023). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant had been stopped for traffic violations when the arresting officer learned that a vehicle identical to defendant’s had just been involved in a drive-by shooting about two blocks away. Defendant and the three passengers were removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and placed in police vehicles. The police seized a gun found beneath the passenger seat. Defendant contends that the search was improper because it was not reasonably related to the need to protect officer safety, relying on People v Stewart (199 AD2d 1043, lv denied 83 NY2d 810) and People v Mullins (196 AD2d 894). The People contend that the search was proper pursuant to a lawful arrest for the drive-by shooting, relying on People v Belton (55 NY2d 49, 55, rearg denied 56 NY2d 646) and People v Acevedo (167 AD2d 891, lv denied 77 NY2d 875). The record supports the People’s contention.

We further conclude that the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle was justified (see, People v Scott, 210 AD2d 920) and that the inventory search was conducted pursuant to standardized procedure (cf., People v Acevedo-Sanchez, 212 AD2d 1023). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 996, 625 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dolson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack