§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Donald Odum, Respondent.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Mapp v. Ohio

    367 U.S. 643 (1961)   Cited 8,292 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"

  2. Bumper v. North Carolina

    391 U.S. 543 (1968)   Cited 2,825 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority “cannot be consent”

  3. People v. Gonzalez

    39 N.Y.2d 122 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 442 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Gonzalez (39 NY2d 122, supra), the Court of Appeals set forth several factors to be considered in determining the voluntariness of an apparent consent, to wit; 1) whether the consenter was in custody or under arrest; 2) whether the consenter was confronted by a large number of police agents; 3) the background of the consenter; 4) whether the consenter had been evasive or uncooperative, and 5) whether the consenter was advised of his/her right to refuse.

  4. People v. Finnegan

    85 N.Y.2d 53 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 240 times
    In Finnegan, the Court of Appeals refused to read into another section of the VTL a requirement that the police affirmatively take certain steps, reasoning that because the Legislature did not impose such an obligation, the courts should not do so in the Legislature's place. Finnegan, 647 N.E.2d at 760-761.

  5. People v. Whitehurst

    25 N.Y.2d 389 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v Whitehurst (25 N.Y.2d 389) a police officer, known to and recognized by a defendant whom he had previously arrested, asked, as though officially authorized so to do, the bald question, "What have you got this time?"

  6. People v. Atkins

    85 N.Y.2d 1007 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 83 times
    In Atkins, the Court of Appeals held that where, as here, a motorist has consented to a blood test prior to arrest, the statutory prerequisites of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, relied on by Petitioner, do not apply.

  7. People v. Kates

    53 N.Y.2d 591 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 77 times
    Analyzing legislative history

  8. People v. Rosa

    112 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 23 times
    In Rosa, the Appellate Division First Department held that the defendant's consent was voluntary when "considering the record as a whole," id., and did not suppress the evidence of the breath test.

  9. People v. Victory

    166 Misc. 2d 549 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1995)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that "the People must now prove at a hearing by expert testimony the scientific reliability of such BAC test administered more than two hours from arrest"

  10. People v. Morris

    8 Misc. 3d 360 (N.Y. Misc. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Morris, 8 Misc.3d 360, 368, 793 N.Y.S.2d 754 [Richmond County Crim. Ct. 2005] this judge suppressed evidence of a defendant's refusal given after the passage of two hours.

  11. Section 1194 - Arrest and testing

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1194   Cited 664 times
    Providing that a refusal to submit to a chemical test is admissible at trial, provided that the person was sufficiently warned of the consequences of refusing to take the test and persisted in the refusal