§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Darrion B. Freeman, Appellant.

Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

    412 U.S. 218 (1973)   Cited 11,966 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

  2. People v. Lin

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1205 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 59 times
    In Jin Cheng Lin, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a 3–1 decision of this Court (105 A.D.3d 761, 761–762, 963 N.Y.S.2d 131 [Hall, J., dissenting]), in which the majority concluded, among other things, that a 28–hour delay in arraignment did not demonstrate that the defendant's statements were involuntary where the delay was attributable to a thorough police investigation and was not part of a “strategically designed plan to permit the defendant to be questioned outside the presence of counsel” (People v. Jin Cheng Lin, 105 A.D.3d at 761–762, 963 N.Y.S.2d 131).

  3. People v. Mercado

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2556 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 18 times

    03-26-2015 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jeffrey MERCADO, Appellant. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Claudia Flores of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), for respondent. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Claudia Flores of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), for respondent. Opinion MEMORANDUM:The

  4. People v. Valerio

    95 N.Y.2d 924 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Decided November 28, 2000. Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 7, 2000, which affirmed a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. At defendant's suppression hearing there was evidence that the defendant was the passenger in an illegally parked

  5. People v. Freeman

    141 A.D.3d 1164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    600 KA 13-00465 07-08-2016 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DARRION B. FREEMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. PRESENT: TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

  6. People v. McFarlane

    995 N.E.2d 845 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    2013-08-29 The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Terrence McFARLANE, Respondent. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Respondent precluded. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Respondent precluded. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination as to whether a defendant has consented to a search involves a mixed question of law and fact ( People v. Valerio

  7. People v. Tremblay

    77 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)   Cited 7 times

    July 10, 1980 Appeal from the Erie Supreme Court. Present — Simons, J.P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ. Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The voluntariness of a consent to search is not vitiated, per se, by the failure to give Miranda warnings to an accused while subject to custodial interrogation. There is no requirement that specific Fourth Amendment warnings be given to a suspect in custody (United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424-425). Miranda warnings involve only