People v. Overton

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Overton

51 Misc. 2d 140, 273 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1864

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 Misc. 2d 140 (People v. Overton) 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. Overton, 51 Misc. 2d 140, 273 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The warrant, insofar as it directed a search of defendant’s locker in a public high school, was vacated by the trial court. The search was illegal and cannot be justified upon the theory of consent on the part of the vice-principal of said school. Defendant had the exclusive use of the locker in question and the purported consent to search it was not binding upon him. The confession obtained from defendant, being the product of [141]*141the illegal search and seizure, was inadmissible against him (People v. Rodrigues, 11 N Y 2d 279, 286). Absent any competent evidence upon which the conviction can be upheld, we are constrained to dismiss the information.

The judgment and order denying motion to suppress evidence should be reversed on the law, motion granted and information dismissed.

McDonald and Groat, JJ., concur; Fanelli, J., not voting.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The warrant, insofar as it directed a search of defendant’s locker in a public high school, was vacated by the trial court. The search was illegal and cannot be justified upon the theory of consent on the part of the vice-principal of said school. Defendant had the exclusive use of the locker in question and the purported consent to search it was not binding upon him. The confession obtained from defendant, being the product of [141]*141the illegal search and seizure, was inadmissible against him (People v. Rodrigues, 11 N Y 2d 279, 286). Absent any competent evidence upon which the conviction can be upheld, we are constrained to dismiss the information.

The judgment and order denying motion to suppress evidence should be reversed on the law, motion granted and information dismissed.

McDonald and Groat, JJ., concur; Fanelli, J., not voting.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Misc. 2d 140, 273 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-overton-nyappterm-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack