X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=47097 Judge Platt DEFENDANT MOVED to suppress the physical evidence offered against him, his identification by a witness at the scene of the alleged crime, and the written statement elicited from him by the police subsequent to his arrest. Defendant contended that the police lacked his consent to conduct a warrantless search of either his motel room or his bag. The court denied defendant’s motions, finding that even if a witness to the incident lacked actual authority to consent to a search of his and defendant’s motel room, the witness had apparent authority to do so. The court added that the police were then justified in conducting the subsequent search of defendant’s bag under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The court concluded that the bag would have been searched and the weapons within it inventoried as seized property, as defendant was simultaneously being taken into custody, and the firearms would therefore have inevitably been discovered.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.