Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Bertinegreen2 sentences2021In a concurring opinion, Justice Blackmun, joined by two other Justices, reiterated [*8]that "[t]he underlying rationale for allowing an inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant rule is that police officers are not vested with discretion to determine the scope of the inventory search" ( id. at 376 ). 1995The purpose of such a search, of course, is not to uncover evidence of crime but simply to produce "a detailed and carefully recorded inventory [to] protec[t] the seized property while it is in police hands and [to] insur[e] against claims of loss, theft or vandalism.” (People v Galak, supra, at 720.) In assessing, then, whether a search may be sustained as falling within the inventory exception to the warrant requirement, it is necessary to determine whether the search was in fact performed for the purpose of producing an inventory and whether the inventorying officer’s discretion respecting | 1 | 4 |
People v. Galakgreen2 sentences1995The purpose of such a search, of course, is not to uncover evidence of crime but simply to produce "a detailed and carefully recorded inventory [to] protec[t] the seized property while it is in police hands and [to] insur[e] against claims of loss, theft or vandalism.” (People v Galak, supra, at 720.) In assessing, then, whether a search may be sustained as falling within the inventory exception to the warrant requirement, it is necessary to determine whether the search was in fact performed for the purpose of producing an inventory and whether the inventorying officer’s discretion respecting 1995The purpose of such a search, of course, is not to uncover evidence of crime but simply to produce "a detailed and carefully recorded inventory [to] protec[t] the seized property while it is in police hands and [to] insur[e] against claims of loss, theft or vandalism.” (People v Galak, supra, at 720.) In assessing, then, whether a search may be sustained as falling within the inventory exception to the warrant requirement, it is necessary to determine whether the search was in fact performed for the purpose of producing an inventory and whether the inventorying officer’s discretion respecting | 1 | 1 |
State v. Montaguegreen1 sentence1968Unless the search is incident to an arrest, I would insist that the police obtain a warrant to search a man’s car just as they must do when they search his home.” (Three other Justices joined with Douglas, J., as dissenters in Cooper.) This thesis has likewise been advanced by the Supreme Court of Washington in the case of State v. Montague ( 438 P. 2d 571, 574 [Wash., 1968]) in which it was held, albeit dictum, “ What is now frequently referred to as the inventory rule will not apply, however, and evidence of crime discovered during the taking of the inventory will be suppressed as evidence, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Moreover, borrowing from criminal law, "[t]he Statute of Limitations of a continuous crime is governed by the termination and not the starting date of the offense." ( People v. Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. , 106 AD2d 867, 868 .) Fifth, the inventory clause in the policy does not bar plaintiff OTC's claim because this is not a case where an insured discovered a theft while taking inventory, and the interpretation placed on the inventory clause by the defendant insurer is commercially unreasonable. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Best v. New York State Liquor Authority
neutral
1 sentence2000Auth., 59 NY2d 906, revg 89 AD2d 893 for reasons stated in dissenting mem of Lazer, J., at 893-894). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
MATTER OF BEST v. New York State Liquor Auth.
neutral
1 sentence2000Auth., 59 NY2d 906, revg 89 AD2d 893 for reasons stated in dissenting mem of Lazer, J., at 893-894). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Turriago
green
1 sentence1997The People’s alternative argument, that evidence of the gun should be admitted under the inventory exception, ignores the fact that the exception is only applicable to secondary evidence (People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 85-86 ; People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313, 319-320 ; People v Silver, 178 AD2d 499, 500 , lv denied 79 NY2d 953 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Silver
green
1 sentence1997The People’s alternative argument, that evidence of the gun should be admitted under the inventory exception, ignores the fact that the exception is only applicable to secondary evidence (People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 85-86 ; People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313, 319-320 ; People v Silver, 178 AD2d 499, 500 , lv denied 79 NY2d 953 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Stith
green
2 sentences1997The People’s alternative argument, that evidence of the gun should be admitted under the inventory exception, ignores the fact that the exception is only applicable to secondary evidence (People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 85-86 ; People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313, 319-320 ; People v Silver, 178 AD2d 499, 500 , lv denied 79 NY2d 953 ). 1997It is inapplicable in the circumstances at bar where the evidence of the gun is “primary” evidence, i.e., “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search” (People v Stith, supra, at 318 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1990"The underlying rationale for allowing an inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant rule is that police officers are not vested with discretion to determine the scope of the inventory search.” (Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367, 376 , supra [Black-mun, J., concurring].) Here, the People failed to establish that the officer, in pulling out the rear seat of defendant’s vehicle, acted in accordance with standardized procedures for inventory searches (cf., People v Gonzalez, supra). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Paltrovitch v. Phœnix Insurance Co. of Hartford
neutral
1 sentence1989Co., 143 NY 73, 77 .) In any event, the issue of plaintiff’s compliance with the inventory requirement, as well as waiver, presents questions of fact for resolution at trial. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence1968Miller v. State, 137 So. 2d 21 (Fla. App. 1962).” While not exactly apposite but nevertheless significant as bearing on the issue presented in the instant case is the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Camara v. Municipal Ct. ( 387 U. S. 523 [1967]). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence1968Miller v. State, 137 So. 2d 21 (Fla. App. 1962).” While not exactly apposite but nevertheless significant as bearing on the issue presented in the instant case is the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Camara v. Municipal Ct. ( 387 U. S. 523 [1967]). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.