People v. Neuschatz

88 Misc. 2d 433, 389 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3376
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 29, 1975·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

An investigator employed in a District Attorney’s office is a police officer (CPL 1.20, subd 34, par [g]), and this status conferred on him authority to issue a simplified traffic information accusing a person of committing a traffic infraction (CPL 100.10, subd 2, par [a]). Since a police officer may make an arrest on a 24-hour basis for any offense which he has reasonable cause to believe a person has committed in his presence (CPL 140.10, subd 1; Matter of Washington v New York City Housing Auth., 31 AD2d 700, affd 24 NY2d 912), it was irrelevant that the officer at the time was engaged in outside employment as a village constable.

[434]*434Concur: Hogan, P. J., Pittoni and Farley, JJ.

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

People v. Neuschatz, 88 Misc. 2d 433, 389 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

88 Misc. 2d 433 (People v. Neuschatz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dill v. Village of Gowanda
952 F. Supp. 989 (W.D. New York, 1997)
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1991
People v. Luciani
120 Misc. 2d 826 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)