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.
7 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Allengreen1 sentence2015The fact that the officers used handcuffs to detain the appellant and other individuals while awaiting the arrival of the complainant for the showup identification “did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest” (People v Worthy, 308 AD2d 555, 555 [2003]; see People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378 [1989]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d at 876 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petersongreen1 sentence2015Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the evidence at a suppression hearing established that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him for the purpose of conducting a showup identification (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d 875, 876 [2015]; Matter of Madeline D., 125 AD3d 965, 966 [2015]; People v Peterson, 110 AD3d 1103, 1103 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. De Bourgreen1 sentence2015Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the evidence at a suppression hearing established that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him for the purpose of conducting a showup identification (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d 875, 876 [2015]; Matter of Madeline D., 125 AD3d 965, 966 [2015]; People v Peterson, 110 AD3d 1103, 1103 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Younggreen1 sentence2015The fact that the officers used handcuffs to detain the appellant and other individuals while awaiting the arrival of the complainant for the showup identification “did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest” (People v Worthy, 308 AD2d 555, 555 [2003]; see People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378 [1989]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d at 876 ). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Madeline D.green1 sentence2015Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the evidence at a suppression hearing established that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him for the purpose of conducting a showup identification (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d 875, 876 [2015]; Matter of Madeline D., 125 AD3d 965, 966 [2015]; People v Peterson, 110 AD3d 1103, 1103 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Jose T.green2 sentences2015Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the evidence at a suppression hearing established that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him for the purpose of conducting a showup identification (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d 875, 876 [2015]; Matter of Madeline D., 125 AD3d 965, 966 [2015]; People v Peterson, 110 AD3d 1103, 1103 [2013]). 2015The fact that the officers used handcuffs to detain the appellant and other individuals while awaiting the arrival of the complainant for the showup identification “did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest” (People v Worthy, 308 AD2d 555, 555 [2003]; see People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378 [1989]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d at 876 ). | 1 | 1 |
People of State of New York v. Howardgreen1 sentence1995The power of the court to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice, without the consent of the prosecution, is to be "exercised most sparingly, and only in those cases where some 'compelling factor’ (CPL 210.40 [1]) warrants the conclusion that the court should substitute its discretion for that of the District Attorney, the State officer normally charged with the responsibility of 'determining when and in what manner to prosecute a suspected offender’ ” (People v Field, 161 AD2d 660, 661 , quoting People v Di Falco, 44 NY2d 482 , 486; see also, People v Howard, 151 AD2d 253 , lv denie | 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. Cheeks
green
1 sentence2024The defendant's assertion that the evidence at a suppression hearing failed to establish probable cause for his arrest is unpreserved for appellate review, since the specific arguments he now makes were not raised before the Supreme Court ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Cruz , 137 AD3d 1158, 1159 ; People v DeCasta , 34 AD3d 828, 828 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. DeCasta
green
1 sentence2024The defendant's assertion that the evidence at a suppression hearing failed to establish probable cause for his arrest is unpreserved for appellate review, since the specific arguments he now makes were not raised before the Supreme Court ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Cruz , 137 AD3d 1158, 1159 ; People v DeCasta , 34 AD3d 828, 828 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence2009As such, the showup was not unduly suggestive and, therefore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]; People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 828 [1993]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People ex rel. Rosario v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2009As such, the showup was not unduly suggestive and, therefore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]; People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 828 [1993]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2007This Court has made clear that the evidence at a suppression hearing bearing on reasonable suspicion or probable cause cannot be defused of its force by a discrete analysis of each particular factor in isolation from all other evidentiary facts (People v Anderson, 17 AD3d at 167 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Field
green
1 sentence1995The power of the court to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice, without the consent of the prosecution, is to be "exercised most sparingly, and only in those cases where some 'compelling factor’ (CPL 210.40 [1]) warrants the conclusion that the court should substitute its discretion for that of the District Attorney, the State officer normally charged with the responsibility of 'determining when and in what manner to prosecute a suspected offender’ ” (People v Field, 161 AD2d 660, 661 , quoting People v Di Falco, 44 NY2d 482 , 486; see also, People v Howard, 151 AD2d 253 , lv denie | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Crawford
neutral
1 sentence1985I am not unaware of People v Brockett ( 64 AD2d 612 , supra), a decision of this court in which I concurred, holding that the “evidence adduced at a trial cannot be used to supply a deficiency of, or buttress, the evidence at a suppression hearing” (see also, People v De Congilio, 71 AD2d 990 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. De Congilio
neutral
1 sentence1985I am not unaware of People v Brockett ( 64 AD2d 612 , supra), a decision of this court in which I concurred, holding that the “evidence adduced at a trial cannot be used to supply a deficiency of, or buttress, the evidence at a suppression hearing” (see also, People v De Congilio, 71 AD2d 990 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Baldwin
green
1 sentence1978At a suppression hearing the burden is upon the prosecution to "come forward with some evidence to show probable cause” (People v Baldwin, 25 NY2d 66, 70-71 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.