The People v. Gregory Lee

New York Court of Appeals

The People v. Gregory Lee

83 N.E.3d 852, 29 N.Y.3d 1119

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

Docket134 SSM 21

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 83 N.E.3d 852 (The People v. Gregory Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The People v. Gregory Lee, 83 N.E.3d 852, 29 N.Y.3d 1119 (N.Y. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

“[T]he People met their burden of establishing that the [inventory] search was in accordance with procedure and resulted in a meaningful inventory list” and that the primary objectives of the search were to preserve the property located inside the vehicle and to protect police from a claim of lost property (People v Padilla, 21 NY3d 268, 272-273 [2013], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 325 [2013]). The fact that the officers knew that contraband might be recovered does “not invalidate the entire search” (id. at 273). “The inventory here, while not a model, was sufficient to meet the constitutional minimum” (People v Walker, 20 NY3d 122, 127 [2012]).

The determinations of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the officers and whether the inventory search was a ruse to look for contraband present mixed questions of law and fact (see People v Valerio, 95 NY2d 924, 925 [2000], cert denied 532 US 981 [2001]). A mixed question is presented when “the facts are disputed, where credibility is at issue or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference [s] to be drawn” (People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Inasmuch as there is record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the primary purpose of the search was to inventory the property located in the vehicle, that issue is beyond further review by this Court (see Valerio, 95 NY2d at 925).

*1121 Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

“[T]he People met their burden of establishing that the [inventory] search was in accordance with procedure and resulted in a meaningful inventory list” and that the primary objectives of the search were to preserve the property located inside the vehicle and to protect police from a claim of lost property (People v Padilla, 21 NY3d 268, 272-273 [2013], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 325 [2013]). The fact that the officers knew that contraband might be recovered does “not invalidate the entire search” (id. at 273). “The inventory here, while not a model, was sufficient to meet the constitutional minimum” (People v Walker, 20 NY3d 122, 127 [2012]).

The determinations of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the officers and whether the inventory search was a ruse to look for contraband present mixed questions of law and fact (see People v Valerio, 95 NY2d 924, 925 [2000], cert denied 532 US 981 [2001]). A mixed question is presented when “the facts are disputed, where credibility is at issue or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference [s] to be drawn” (People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Inasmuch as there is record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the primary purpose of the search was to inventory the property located in the vehicle, that issue is beyond further review by this Court (see Valerio, 95 NY2d at 925).

*1121 Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.E.3d 852, 29 N.Y.3d 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-v-gregory-lee-ny-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack