From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Edmonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 30, 2000
272 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 30, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J., at hearing; Renee White, J., at trial and sentence), rendered July 8, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to three concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Barbara Jane Hutter, for respondent.

David M. Goldberg, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Wallach, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. At the suppression hearing, defendant failed to raise the broad challenge based on personal privacy interests he now asserts with respect to the legality of the strip search and alleged body cavity search conducted at the precinct following his arrest. Thus, his claims are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Moreover, his claims are unreviewable for lack of a sufficient factual record. Were we to review these claims, we would find that defendant, who was lawfully arrested for selling drugs, was not subjected to an unreasonable search (see People v. Harris, 217 A.D.2d 791, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 846).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Edmonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 30, 2000
272 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Edmonds

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. EVERETT EDMONDS, A/K/A…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 30, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
710 N.Y.S.2d 242

Citing Cases

People v. Barnville

Although not relied on by the People, there is authority for the proposition that a person may be strip…