People v. De Bour
40 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 2,265 times 6 Legal AnalysesIn People v. LaPene, 352 N.E.2d 562 (N.Y. 1976), the New York Court of Appeals laid out a sliding scale of justifiable police intrusion, short of probable cause to arrest, which specified three distinct levels of intrusion correlating the allowable intensity of police conduct to the nature and weight of the facts precipitating the intrusion.
People v. Robinson
97 N.Y.2d 341 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 492 times 2 Legal AnalysesDeclining to distinguish between criminal and traffic violations for the purposes of searches and seizures under New York law
People v. Ramirez
88 N.Y.2d 99 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 525 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding the fellow officer rule provides that even if an arresting officer lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, the arrest will be lawful if the officer acts upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a superior or fellow officer or another police department provided that the police as a whole were in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause
People v. Martinez
80 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 410 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Martinez, we acknowledged that the “[d]efendant had a right to refuse to respond to a police inquiry and his flight when the officers approached could not, in and of itself, create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (id. at 448, 591 N.Y.S.2d 823, 606 N.E.2d 951 [citation omitted]).
People v. Ingle
36 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 626 timesIn People v Ingle (36 N.Y.2d 413, supra), this Court discussed the reasonableness of "routine safety checks" undertaken by the State Police pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 390 in which the police temporarily detained vehicles to determine whether they were "being operated in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law" (id., at 415).
People v. Weaver
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3762 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 126 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding use of GPS device to track suspect for 65 days was search
People v. Dunn
77 N.Y.2d 19 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 90 timesHolding dog sniff at door of apartment from common hallway was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment "[s]ince the `canine sniff' conducted outside his apartment could reveal only the presence or absence of illicit drugs"
Rasmusson v. Chisago Cnty.
991 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Minn. 2014) Cited 41 timesHolding that Collier and a similar case failed to address the DPPA's restrictive remedy and restrictive statute of limitations and declining to apply those cases
People of N.Y. v. Diggs
38 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 12 timesNo. 2005-04424, (Ind. No. 110/04). March 6, 2007. Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered April 19, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. David Goodman, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Steven Levine of
People v. Safoschnik
238 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 2 timesApril 14, 1997 Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), dated May 9, 1996, which granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment. The police observed the defendant driving
Section 2721 - Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records
18 U.S.C. § 2721 Cited 608 times 23 Legal AnalysesExempting any government agency, including law enforcement, "in carrying out its functions"