People v. Wesley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wesley

88 Misc. 2d 177, 387 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1976 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2641

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 Misc. 2d 177 (People v. Wesley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Wesley, 88 Misc. 2d 177, 387 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1976 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order unanimously reversed on the law and matter remanded to the court below for a hearing and determination de novo.

We do not agree with the court below that shining an ultraviolet light on defendant’s hands constituted a search (see United States v Lee, 274 US 559; People v Anthony, 21 AD2d 666, cert den 379 US 983). Nevertheless, if the initial detention or seizure of defendant was unlawful, the evidence thereafter acquired must be suppressed (People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106). We cannot determine, however, whether there were sufficient' grounds for the seizure of defendant’s person inasmuch as no hearing was held on the motion. The matter must therefore be remanded to the court below for determination de novo following a hearing at which the facts surrounding the seizure may be fully developed.

Concur: Farley, Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Order unanimously reversed on the law and matter remanded to the court below for a hearing and determination de novo.

We do not agree with the court below that shining an ultraviolet light on defendant’s hands constituted a search (see United States v Lee, 274 US 559; People v Anthony, 21 AD2d 666, cert den 379 US 983). Nevertheless, if the initial detention or seizure of defendant was unlawful, the evidence thereafter acquired must be suppressed (People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106). We cannot determine, however, whether there were sufficient' grounds for the seizure of defendant’s person inasmuch as no hearing was held on the motion. The matter must therefore be remanded to the court below for determination de novo following a hearing at which the facts surrounding the seizure may be fully developed.

Concur: Farley, Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Misc. 2d 177, 387 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1976 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wesley-nyappterm-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack