People v. Maye

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Maye

904 N.E.2d 812, 12 N.Y.3d 731

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 12, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 904 N.E.2d 812 (People v. Maye) 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. Maye, 904 N.E.2d 812, 12 N.Y.3d 731 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by granting defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine recovered and remitting to County Court for farther proceedings in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant seeks suppression of evidence including cocaine found in a “baggie” during a manual body cavity search performed at a police station, without a warrant. The officer who carried out the search testified that he saw the “baggie” protruding from defendant’s rectum, and removed it. Since no exigent circumstances prevented the police from seeking prior *732 judicial authorization for the search, defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted to the extent of suppressing the cocaine recovered (see People v Hall, 10 NY3d 303, 311 [2008]).

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.

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 modified by granting defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine recovered and remitting to County Court for farther proceedings in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant seeks suppression of evidence including cocaine found in a “baggie” during a manual body cavity search performed at a police station, without a warrant. The officer who carried out the search testified that he saw the “baggie” protruding from defendant’s rectum, and removed it. Since no exigent circumstances prevented the police from seeking prior *732 judicial authorization for the search, defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted to the extent of suppressing the cocaine recovered (see People v Hall, 10 NY3d 303, 311 [2008]).

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

904 N.E.2d 812, 12 N.Y.3d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maye-ny-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack