People v. McKnight

New York Court of Appeals

People v. McKnight

260 N.E.2d 552, 26 N.Y.2d 1034, 311 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1333

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 N.E.2d 552 (People v. McKnight) 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. McKnight, 260 N.E.2d 552, 26 N.Y.2d 1034, 311 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1333 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. In granting the motion to suppress, the County Court erroneously applied the principle expressed in People v. Marsh (20 N Y 2d 98). Within the exceptions noted in that decision (p. 101), and upon the officer’s uncontradicted testimony and the County Court’s resultant findings as to defendant’s furtive movements toward the bottom of the front se'at, after the first seizure, it is clear that the officer was warranted in reaching under the seat and seizing the loaded pistol found there. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the defendant’s motion to suppress denied.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order reversed and case remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Memorandum. In granting the motion to suppress, the County Court erroneously applied the principle expressed in People v. Marsh (20 N Y 2d 98). Within the exceptions noted in that decision (p. 101), and upon the officer’s uncontradicted testimony and the County Court’s resultant findings as to defendant’s furtive movements toward the bottom of the front se'at, after the first seizure, it is clear that the officer was warranted in reaching under the seat and seizing the loaded pistol found there. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the defendant’s motion to suppress denied.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order reversed and case remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 N.E.2d 552, 26 N.Y.2d 1034, 311 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcknight-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack