People v. Glover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Glover

57 A.D.3d 234, 869 N.Y.2d 400

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 234 (People v. Glover) 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. Glover, 57 A.D.3d 234, 869 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Following this Court’s remand (46 AD3d 362 [2007]), the hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the credibility determinations made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the court, including the finding that the open container violation at issue occurred in a public place and that the arresting officers learned that defendant was wanted on two outstanding warrants. The inventory search of defendant’s bag was properly executed pursuant to established Police Department procedure, was supported by sufficient documentation and was not conducted as a [235]*235ruse to discover incriminating evidence (see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 252, 256 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Catterson, JJ.

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

Following this Court’s remand (46 AD3d 362 [2007]), the hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the credibility determinations made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the court, including the finding that the open container violation at issue occurred in a public place and that the arresting officers learned that defendant was wanted on two outstanding warrants. The inventory search of defendant’s bag was properly executed pursuant to established Police Department procedure, was supported by sufficient documentation and was not conducted as a [235]*235ruse to discover incriminating evidence (see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 252, 256 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 234, 869 N.Y.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-glover-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack