People v. Rubino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rubino

35 A.D.2d 530, 313 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4186

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.2d 530 (People v. Rubino) 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. Rubino, 35 A.D.2d 530, 313 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins Munder, concur; so as to deny the motion to suppress only as to the sleepwear and to grant the motion as to the bathing suits, with the following memorandum: Clearly the police officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for the criminal possession of the stolen "Stu-Ardt” sleepwear on the basis of the informer’s information that defendant possessed the sleepwear and the prior report to the police that the sleepwear had been stolen. However, as to the bathing suits, the facts are somewhat different. The informer had also indicated that defendant possessed “ Colony ” bathing suits which had been stolen. When the officer seized the bathing suits they were marked “ Capri ”, He did not learn from whom the bathing suits had been stolen until after the arrest and thus he had no basis for seizing them.

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

Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins Munder, concur; so as to deny the motion to suppress only as to the sleepwear and to grant the motion as to the bathing suits, with the following memorandum: Clearly the police officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for the criminal possession of the stolen "Stu-Ardt” sleepwear on the basis of the informer’s information that defendant possessed the sleepwear and the prior report to the police that the sleepwear had been stolen. However, as to the bathing suits, the facts are somewhat different. The informer had also indicated that defendant possessed “ Colony ” bathing suits which had been stolen. When the officer seized the bathing suits they were marked “ Capri ”, He did not learn from whom the bathing suits had been stolen until after the arrest and thus he had no basis for seizing them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 530, 313 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rubino-nyappdiv-1970.