linchpin analysis in New York

1981When judged in accordance with “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act” (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175 ), the police conduct of securing the rifle and ammunition in the defendant’s closet was a reasonable response to the situation in which they found themselves and, therefore, was not proscribed by the exclusionary rule.

1981When judged in accordance with ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act’ (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175 ), the police conduct * * * [requesting examination of defendant’s bag] was a reasonable response to the situation in which they found themselves and, therefore, was not proscribed by the exclusionary rule.” (People v Adams, supra, p 11 .) What followed was, as described above, transfer of the actors to the clerk’s office, the defendant’s movement of hands from the coqnter toward the waist, the patd

1981(See People v Kreichman, 37 NY2d 693 ; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 , affd 36 NY2d 971 .) As recently noted by the Court of Appeals: “Detached from the tension and drama of the moment, it is sometimes easy for an appellate court to lose sight of the fact that it is the reasonableness of police action which is the linchpin to analysis of any case arising under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v Adams, supra, p 11 .) As to the confessions, even if the detention was illegal, the statements would nevertheless be admissible in evidence.

1981When judged in accordance with ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act’ (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175 ), the police conduct * * * [requesting examination of defendant’s bag] was a reasonable response to the situation in which they found themselves and, therefore, was not proscribed by the exclusionary rule.” (People v Adams, supra, p 11 .) What followed was, as described above, transfer of the actors to the clerk’s office, the defendant’s movement of hands from the coqnter toward the waist, the patd

1997(See, People v Gathers, 207 AD2d 751, 752 , lv denied 84 NY2d 1031 .) When a defendant chooses to present affirmative proof, his failure to produce supportive evidence, especially where such proof would ordinarily be available, may be brought to the jury’s attention.

1983(People v Williams, 67 AD2d 613 .) Because of the serious violation of defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent the motion for a mistrial is granted despite the absence of timely objection.

1981(See People v Kreichman, 37 NY2d 693 ; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 , affd 36 NY2d 971 .) As recently noted by the Court of Appeals: “Detached from the tension and drama of the moment, it is sometimes easy for an appellate court to lose sight of the fact that it is the reasonableness of police action which is the linchpin to analysis of any case arising under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v Adams, supra, p 11 .) As to the confessions, even if the detention was illegal, the statements would nevertheless be admissible in evidence.

1981(See People v Kreichman, 37 NY2d 693 ; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 , affd 36 NY2d 971 .) As recently noted by the Court of Appeals: “Detached from the tension and drama of the moment, it is sometimes easy for an appellate court to lose sight of the fact that it is the reasonableness of police action which is the linchpin to analysis of any case arising under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v Adams, supra, p 11 .) As to the confessions, even if the detention was illegal, the statements would nevertheless be admissible in evidence.

1981(See People v Kreichman, 37 NY2d 693 ; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 , affd 36 NY2d 971 .) As recently noted by the Court of Appeals: “Detached from the tension and drama of the moment, it is sometimes easy for an appellate court to lose sight of the fact that it is the reasonableness of police action which is the linchpin to analysis of any case arising under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v Adams, supra, p 11 .) As to the confessions, even if the detention was illegal, the statements would nevertheless be admissible in evidence.

1981As stated in People v Rogers ( 52 NY2d 527, 534-535 ): “The exclusionary rule exacts a heavy penalty, and although its operation is justified, the exclusion of evidence should be for therapeutic reasons and should not be used as a punitive measure.