People v. Dopkeen

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dopkeen

156 Misc. 2d 728, 601 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 331

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 156 Misc. 2d 728 (People v. Dopkeen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Dopkeen, 156 Misc. 2d 728, 601 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

The Department of Transportation regulation which prohib[729]*729its the taking of photographs or moving pictures except in a designated parking area or otherwise as authorized by the Department of Transportation is a reasonable exercise of police power and is not an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, either as applied to the defendant herein or by reason of overbreadth (see, New York State Club Assn. v New York City, 487 US 1; Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665). Moreover, the return, by which this court is bound, gives no basis to disturb any of defendant’s convictions (see, People v Prior, 4 NY2d 70).

DiPaola, P. J., Collins and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

The Department of Transportation regulation which prohib[729]*729its the taking of photographs or moving pictures except in a designated parking area or otherwise as authorized by the Department of Transportation is a reasonable exercise of police power and is not an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, either as applied to the defendant herein or by reason of overbreadth (see, New York State Club Assn. v New York City, 487 US 1; Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665). Moreover, the return, by which this court is bound, gives no basis to disturb any of defendant’s convictions (see, People v Prior, 4 NY2d 70).

DiPaola, P. J., Collins and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 Misc. 2d 728, 601 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dopkeen-nyappterm-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack