People v. Skeete

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Skeete

258 A.D.2d 426, 684 N.Y.S.2d 198

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 258 A.D.2d 426 (People v. Skeete) 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. Skeete, 258 A.D.2d 426, 684 N.Y.S.2d 198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered January 12, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The “no knock” provision of the search warrant was not based solely upon the fact that drugs were involved. The issuing Magistrate was furnished with sufficient details of defendant’s selling operation to support reasonable suspicion that defendant would be present at the time of the search and that the drugs were of a type, and were in locations in the apartment, that made [427]*427them readily disposable (see, Richards v Wisconsin, 520 US 385). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered January 12, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The “no knock” provision of the search warrant was not based solely upon the fact that drugs were involved. The issuing Magistrate was furnished with sufficient details of defendant’s selling operation to support reasonable suspicion that defendant would be present at the time of the search and that the drugs were of a type, and were in locations in the apartment, that made [427]*427them readily disposable (see, Richards v Wisconsin, 520 US 385). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 426, 684 N.Y.S.2d 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-skeete-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack