People v. Matera

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matera

45 Misc. 2d 864, 258 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2179

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 12, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 Misc. 2d 864 (People v. Matera) 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. Matera, 45 Misc. 2d 864, 258 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and on the facts and information dismissed. The court below erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant, without his consent and prior to his arrest which, indeed, was based upon possession of the articles obtained by the search. Defendant’s response to a direction to empty his pockets during questioning by three special patrolmen who had apprehended him in a part of Bellevue Hospital to which the public has access and had then taken him to their one-door, one-room headquarters, cannot be deemed a search by consent under these circumstances. Neither can it be classified as incidental to a lawful arrest, as the arrest followed and was predicated solely upon the items thus revealed. The dissent intermingles testimony given at the trial with that elicited at the hearing upon the motion to suppress. This court is bound by the latter testimony, which contains nothing about an 1 ‘ exposed bag which contained a syringe ” or a “ syringe sticking out of his jacket pocket. ’ ’

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and on the facts and information dismissed. The court below erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant, without his consent and prior to his arrest which, indeed, was based upon possession of the articles obtained by the search. Defendant’s response to a direction to empty his pockets during questioning by three special patrolmen who had apprehended him in a part of Bellevue Hospital to which the public has access and had then taken him to their one-door, one-room headquarters, cannot be deemed a search by consent under these circumstances. Neither can it be classified as incidental to a lawful arrest, as the arrest followed and was predicated solely upon the items thus revealed. The dissent intermingles testimony given at the trial with that elicited at the hearing upon the motion to suppress. This court is bound by the latter testimony, which contains nothing about an 1 ‘ exposed bag which contained a syringe ” or a “ syringe sticking out of his jacket pocket. ’ ’

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Misc. 2d 864, 258 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matera-nyappterm-1965.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack