People v. St. John

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. St. John

186 A.D.2d 1049, 588 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11655

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1049 (People v. St. John) 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. St. John, 186 A.D.2d 1049, 588 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion granted and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The testimony at the suppression hearing established that defendant was arrested based upon the observations of two sheriff's deputies over a 90-minute period. Defendant and John Hill were observed exchanging items with numerous individuals outside a bar in an area known for narcotics trafficking. That testimony revealed, however, that the deputies could not identify or describe any of the items allegedly exchanged. Without any information tending to establish the nature of those items, the deputies lacked probable cause for defendant’s arrest (cf., People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 602, 605). The property seized from defendant incident to that unlawful arrest must, therefore, be suppressed. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion granted and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The testimony at the suppression hearing established that defendant was arrested based upon the observations of two sheriff's deputies over a 90-minute period. Defendant and John Hill were observed exchanging items with numerous individuals outside a bar in an area known for narcotics trafficking. That testimony revealed, however, that the deputies could not identify or describe any of the items allegedly exchanged. Without any information tending to establish the nature of those items, the deputies lacked probable cause for defendant’s arrest (cf., People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 602, 605). The property seized from defendant incident to that unlawful arrest must, therefore, be suppressed. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1049, 588 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-st-john-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack