People v. Dunbar

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dunbar

840 N.E.2d 106, 5 N.Y.3d 834

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 840 N.E.2d 106 (People v. Dunbar) 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. Dunbar, 840 N.E.2d 106, 5 N.Y.3d 834 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The suppression court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, held that the police did not have a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, as needed in order to engage in the more extended, accusatory questioning attendant to a common-law inquiry. As we held in People v Hollman (79 NY2d 181, 191-192 [1992]), a consent to search will not be upheld unless the request to search is supported by a founded suspicion of criminality (see also People v Tejeda, 217 AD2d 932 [4th Dept 1995]; People v Carter, 199 AD2d 817 [3d Dept 1993]; People v Alston, 193 AD2d 883 [3d Dept 1993]; People v Boyd, 188 AD2d 239 [1st Dept 1993]). Here, as the courts determined, defendant granted the police permission to search his person and his car only after questioning that might reasonably have led him to believe that he was suspected (without a founded suspicion) of criminality.

When, as here, there is support in the record for the lower courts’ undisturbed finding as to the lack of a founded suspicion of criminality, our review is at an end.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The suppression court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, held that the police did not have a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, as needed in order to engage in the more extended, accusatory questioning attendant to a common-law inquiry. As we held in People v Hollman (79 NY2d 181, 191-192 [1992]), a consent to search will not be upheld unless the request to search is supported by a founded suspicion of criminality (see also People v Tejeda, 217 AD2d 932 [4th Dept 1995]; People v Carter, 199 AD2d 817 [3d Dept 1993]; People v Alston, 193 AD2d 883 [3d Dept 1993]; People v Boyd, 188 AD2d 239 [1st Dept 1993]). Here, as the courts determined, defendant granted the police permission to search his person and his car only after questioning that might reasonably have led him to believe that he was suspected (without a founded suspicion) of criminality.

When, as here, there is support in the record for the lower courts’ undisturbed finding as to the lack of a founded suspicion of criminality, our review is at an end.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 N.E.2d 106, 5 N.Y.3d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunbar-ny-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack