People v. Lanier

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Lanier

426 N.E.2d 473, 54 N.Y.2d 725, 442 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2652

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 426 N.E.2d 473 (People v. Lanier) 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. Lanier, 426 N.E.2d 473, 54 N.Y.2d 725, 442 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2652 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

*727 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Joseph Harris in Albany County Court. In the peculiar circumstances disclosed in this record there was such reliability of the detailed description of the joint activities of the participants in the Livingston robbery furnished by one of their number in the presence of his counsel, such undisputed physical propinquity and connection among the residential properties of those participants, and such description of their joint, postrobbery activities based on the continuing personal observations of Investigator Baker as to preclude any conclusion on our part that the suppression court’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant for the search of the premises at 55 Rensselaer Street for the narrowly prescribed purpose of seizing the eight explicitly identified articles of home furnishings, now affirmed at the Appellate Division, was erroneous as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*727 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Joseph Harris in Albany County Court. In the peculiar circumstances disclosed in this record there was such reliability of the detailed description of the joint activities of the participants in the Livingston robbery furnished by one of their number in the presence of his counsel, such undisputed physical propinquity and connection among the residential properties of those participants, and such description of their joint, postrobbery activities based on the continuing personal observations of Investigator Baker as to preclude any conclusion on our part that the suppression court’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant for the search of the premises at 55 Rensselaer Street for the narrowly prescribed purpose of seizing the eight explicitly identified articles of home furnishings, now affirmed at the Appellate Division, was erroneous as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 N.E.2d 473, 54 N.Y.2d 725, 442 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lanier-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack