18 Cited authorities

Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,239 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Arizona v. Gant
556 U.S. 332 (2009) Cited 3,891 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourth Amendment does not permit officers to search every vehicle incident to arrest
People v. Feingold
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5233 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 347 times 3 Legal Analyses
Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears
People v. McRay
51 N.Y.2d 594 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 495 times
Recognizing that a glassine envelope is a "'telltale sign of heroin'" and that passing one in a "furtive or evasive" manner provides probable cause to arrest (quoting People v. Alexander, 333 N.E.2d 157, 158 (N.Y. 1975))
People v. Register
60 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 346 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the depraved indifference element referred to the "factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur," rather than the mens rea requirement
People v. Turriago
90 N.Y.2d 77 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 164 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an issue was not preserved for appeal when a lower court's observations about a related issue did not amount to an express decision on the issue in question
People v. Edwards
95 N.Y.2d 486 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 129 times
In People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876 (2000), the Court of Appeals reached the merits of a probable cause issue, decided by the trial court at the close of a suppression hearing.
People v. Jimenez
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1262 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 77 times 1 Legal Analyses
In People v. Jimenez, 22 N.Y.3d at 723–724, 985 N.Y.S.2d 456, 8 N.E.3d 831), other than a police officer's perception that a large purse that was removed from the defendant's shoulder appeared to be heavy, there were no circumstances supporting a reasonable belief that the purse contained weapon or destructible evidence, and nothing connected the defendant or the codefendant to the burglary report at the building in the lobby of which the defendant was arrested for trespass.
People v. Martin
50 N.Y.2d 1029 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 196 times
Argued April 24, 1980 Decided July 3, 1980 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EDWARD S. LENTOL, J. James J. Harrington and Steven B. Prystowsky for appellant. Thomas R. Sullivan, District Attorney (George E. McVay of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. It is defendant's contention that, although the police may have had probable cause to arrest him, they acted improperly when they entered
People C. v. Jeanty
94 N.Y.2d 507 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 106 times
In Jeanty (supra), the defendant argued that the newly enacted "two hour rule" only applied if the court could not in any way contact the jurors and afford them an opportunity to explain their absence.

The People, Respondent,v.Nelson Miranda, Appellant.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

Holding that the Fourth Amendment does not permit officers to search every vehicle incident to arrest

Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears

Recognizing that a glassine envelope is a "'telltale sign of heroin'" and that passing one in a "furtive or evasive" manner provides probable cause to arrest (quoting People v. Alexander, 333 N.E.2d 157, 158 (N.Y. 1975))

Holding that the depraved indifference element referred to the "factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur," rather than the mens rea requirement

Holding that an issue was not preserved for appeal when a lower court's observations about a related issue did not amount to an express decision on the issue in question

In People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876 (2000), the Court of Appeals reached the merits of a probable cause issue, decided by the trial court at the close of a suppression hearing.

In Jeanty (supra), the defendant argued that the newly enacted "two hour rule" only applied if the court could not in any way contact the jurors and afford them an opportunity to explain their absence.