7 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1951–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2006The search and seizure claim sounds in constitutional tort which is defined as an action for damages for violation of a constitutional right against a government or individual defendants (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 177 [1996]). 2003In Brown v State of New York ( 89 NY2d 172 [1996]), the Court of Appeals implied a damage remedy for violations of the search and seizure clause (see NY Const, art 1, § 12) and the equal protection clause (see NY Const, art 1, § 11) of the New York State Constitution because the remedy in that case was consistent with the purposes underlying the duties imposed by those provisions and it was “necessary and appropriate to ensure the full realization of the rights they state” (Brown v State of New York, supra at 189). | 2 | 2 |
Longley-Jones Associates, Inc. v. Ircon Realty Co.green1 sentence2016In People v Robinson, the Court of Appeals held that “a police officer who has probable cause to believe a driver has committed a traffic infraction” does not violate the search and seizure clause of the State Constitution, even where the officer’s “primary motivation is to conduct another investigation” (97 *67 NY2d at 346). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. City of Schenectadygreen2 sentences2003In Martinez v City of Schenectady ( 97 NY2d 78 [2001]), however, the Court of Appeals made it clear that the “narrow remedy” created in Brown (supra at 192 ), was not “boundless” and “[c]laimants must establish grounds that entitle them to a damages remedy, in addition to proving that their constitutional rights have been violated” (Martinez v City of Schenectady, supra at 83). 2003In Martinez v City of Schenectady ( 97 NY2d 78 [2001]), however, the Court of Appeals made it clear that the “narrow remedy” created in Brown (supra at 192 ), was not “boundless” and “[c]laimants must establish grounds that entitle them to a damages remedy, in addition to proving that their constitutional rights have been violated” (Martinez v City of Schenectady, supra at 83). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lyles v. State of NY
green
1 sentence2025The New York State Constitution contains an implied "damage remedy for violations of the search and seizure clause" ( Lyles v State of New York , 2 AD3d 694, 695 , affd 3 NY3d 396 ; see NY Const, art I, § 12). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lyles v. State
green
2 sentences2025The New York State Constitution contains an implied "damage remedy for violations of the search and seizure clause" ( Lyles v State of New York , 2 AD3d 694, 695 , affd 3 NY3d 396 ; see NY Const, art I, § 12). 2025However, this remedy is unavailable where the plaintiff has an alternative remedy available, such as a timely interposed common-law tort cause of action ( see Peterec v State of New York , 124 AD3d 858, 859 ; Lyles v State of New York , 2 AD3d at 695 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Peterec v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2025However, this remedy is unavailable where the plaintiff has an alternative remedy available, such as a timely interposed common-law tort cause of action ( see Peterec v State of New York , 124 AD3d 858, 859 ; Lyles v State of New York , 2 AD3d at 695 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Defore
green
2 sentences1996The defendant's remedy for the wrong, he said, was a civil suit for damages ( see , People v Defore , 242 N.Y. 13, 19 , cert denied 270 US 657 ). 1996The defendant’s remedy for the wrong, he said, was a civil suit for damages (see, People v Defore, 242 NY 13, 19 , cert denied 270 US 657 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Defore v. New York
green
2 sentences1996The defendant's remedy for the wrong, he said, was a civil suit for damages ( see , People v Defore , 242 N.Y. 13, 19 , cert denied 270 US 657 ). 1996The defendant’s remedy for the wrong, he said, was a civil suit for damages (see, People v Defore, 242 NY 13, 19 , cert denied 270 US 657 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Oliver v. United States
green
1 sentence1991In Oliver v United States ( 466 US 170 ) the Supreme Court addressed this issue and held that: "we reject the suggestion that steps taken to protect privacy establish that expectations of privacy in an open field are legitimate. * * * [Although the defendant] planted the marihuana upon secluded land and erected fences and 'No Trespassing’ signs around the property * * * [n]either of these suppositions demonstrates, however, that the expectation of privacy was legitimate in the sense required by the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wolf v. Colorado
red
1 sentence1951(Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 .) State and city police and all State and city courts are governed by the search and seizure clause in the State Constitution. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.