People v. Easterbrook
This text of 324 N.E.2d 367 (People v. Easterbrook) 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.
Opinion
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The warrant, based upon an affidavit which alleged that heroin was being used and sold in a specified apartment, authorized a search of that apartment, its lessee and “ any other person who may be found to have such property in his possession or under his control or to whom such property may have been delivered ”. The defendant, who was seen, apprehended and searched as he was exiting the apartment, was within the area and class of individuals authorized to be searched (cf. People v. Marshall, 13 N Y 2d 28) and, thus his motion to suppress was properly denied. People v. Green (33 N Y 2d 496), relied upon by the defendant, is distinguishable for the warrant involved in that case limited the search area to a specified apartment and persons found “ therein ”. Such is not the case here.
Chief Judge Brbitbl and Judges Jasen, G-abrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
324 N.E.2d 367, 35 N.Y.2d 913, 364 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-easterbrook-ny-1974.