People v. Poritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Poritz

40 A.D.2d 1039, 338 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2962

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1039 (People v. Poritz) 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. Poritz, 40 A.D.2d 1039, 338 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 9, 1971, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. The appeal has brought up for review said court’s denial, on March 31, 1971 and again on April 2, 1971, after the suppression hearing had been reopened, of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, motion to suppress granted and case remanded to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the search of defendant’s suitcases prior to his arrest was unreasonable and unauthorized. The circumstances of this case gave rise neither to probable cause to arrest nor to a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a “frisk” of defendant (cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176; CPL 140.50; former Code Crim. Pro., .§ 180-a). In the situation presented by this ease, the detective would have been justified only in making an inquiry of defendant as to his activities (People v. Rosemond, 26 N Y 2d 101). Unsatisfactory responses and/or activity on defendant’s part might then have provided justification for further inquiry, a “frisk” of defendant’s person, or an arrest. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuseello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 9, 1971, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. The appeal has brought up for review said court’s denial, on March 31, 1971 and again on April 2, 1971, after the suppression hearing had been reopened, of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, motion to suppress granted and case remanded to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the search of defendant’s suitcases prior to his arrest was unreasonable and unauthorized. The circumstances of this case gave rise neither to probable cause to arrest nor to a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a “frisk” of defendant (cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176; CPL 140.50; former Code Crim. Pro., .§ 180-a). In the situation presented by this ease, the detective would have been justified only in making an inquiry of defendant as to his activities (People v. Rosemond, 26 N Y 2d 101). Unsatisfactory responses and/or activity on defendant’s part might then have provided justification for further inquiry, a “frisk” of defendant’s person, or an arrest. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuseello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1039, 338 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-poritz-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack