People v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ross

157 A.D.2d 808, 550 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 694

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 808 (People v. Ross) 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. Ross, 157 A.D.2d 808, 550 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered March 22, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The airport search of the defendant’s "carry-on luggage” by means of an X-ray machine was reasonable and constitutionally permissible given the evident danger to the public, the overwhelming governmental interest, and the minimal invasion into personal privacy (see, People v Brown, 113 AD2d 893; see also, People v Price, 54 NY2d 557, 563-564; People v Kuhn, 33 NY2d 203, 209-210). Thus, the hearing court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun found in that luggage. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered March 22, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The airport search of the defendant’s "carry-on luggage” by means of an X-ray machine was reasonable and constitutionally permissible given the evident danger to the public, the overwhelming governmental interest, and the minimal invasion into personal privacy (see, People v Brown, 113 AD2d 893; see also, People v Price, 54 NY2d 557, 563-564; People v Kuhn, 33 NY2d 203, 209-210). Thus, the hearing court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun found in that luggage. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 808, 550 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ross-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack