People v. One 1965 Fiat Convertible Vehicle Identification No. H8H031736

New York Supreme Court

People v. One 1965 Fiat Convertible Vehicle Identification No. H8H031736

68 Misc. 2d 22, 326 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1108

DecidedNovember 23, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 68 Misc. 2d 22 (People v. One 1965 Fiat Convertible Vehicle Identification No. H8H031736) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. One 1965 Fiat Convertible Vehicle Identification No. H8H031736, 68 Misc. 2d 22, 326 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1108 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

J. Robert Lynch, J.

Upon the allegation that it was found to have been carrying a quantity of marijuana, the District Attorney has moved under section 3353 of the Public Health Law for the forfeiture of the 1965 Fiat further described in the caption herein. It is now conceded that the car, otherwise accurately described, is in fact a 1969 model. We think the misdescription is unimportant because forfeiture could not be had even were it accurately described.

[23]*23It has been determined by the Herkimer County Judge that the marijuana was discovered through an illegal search and its use as evidence has been suppressed by him. The District Attorney contends that this suppression extends only to any criminal trial against the car’s occupants. Troy, the owner of the car, contends that the suppression should extend to this forfeiture proceeding.

The Court of Appeals has specifically rejected the argument that the suppression of such evidence is limited to criminal prosecutions, declaring that the purpose of such suppression is to remove the incentive for police and others to violate anyone’s constitutional rights. (Matter of Finn’s Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth., 24 N Y 2d 647.)

Therefore, forfeiture must be denied.

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

J. Robert Lynch, J.

Upon the allegation that it was found to have been carrying a quantity of marijuana, the District Attorney has moved under section 3353 of the Public Health Law for the forfeiture of the 1965 Fiat further described in the caption herein. It is now conceded that the car, otherwise accurately described, is in fact a 1969 model. We think the misdescription is unimportant because forfeiture could not be had even were it accurately described.

[23]*23It has been determined by the Herkimer County Judge that the marijuana was discovered through an illegal search and its use as evidence has been suppressed by him. The District Attorney contends that this suppression extends only to any criminal trial against the car’s occupants. Troy, the owner of the car, contends that the suppression should extend to this forfeiture proceeding.

The Court of Appeals has specifically rejected the argument that the suppression of such evidence is limited to criminal prosecutions, declaring that the purpose of such suppression is to remove the incentive for police and others to violate anyone’s constitutional rights. (Matter of Finn’s Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth., 24 N Y 2d 647.)

Therefore, forfeiture must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 Misc. 2d 22, 326 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-one-1965-fiat-convertible-vehicle-identification-no-h8h031736-nysupct-1971.