People v. Placek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Placek

58 A.D.3d 538, 870 N.Y.S.2d 788

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 538 (People v. Placek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Placek, 58 A.D.3d 538, 870 N.Y.S.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J., at suppression hearing; Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at plea and sentence), rendered [539]*539September 27, 2007, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Incident to a lawful arrest, the police recovered a bag of drugs from defendant’s person. The record supports the hearing court’s factual determination that there was no body cavity search requiring a warrant, because the bag was between defendant’s underwear and his buttocks, and was not in his rectum (see People v Walker, 27 AD3d 899, 901 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]; People v Butler, 27 AD3d 365, 369 [2006], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 893 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J., at suppression hearing; Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at plea and sentence), rendered [539]*539September 27, 2007, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Incident to a lawful arrest, the police recovered a bag of drugs from defendant’s person. The record supports the hearing court’s factual determination that there was no body cavity search requiring a warrant, because the bag was between defendant’s underwear and his buttocks, and was not in his rectum (see People v Walker, 27 AD3d 899, 901 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]; People v Butler, 27 AD3d 365, 369 [2006], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 893 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 538, 870 N.Y.S.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-placek-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack