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.
6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2022 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. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2013Since there was a valid custodial arrest for the open container violation, the officer’s search of defendant incident to that arrest was proper, and the subsequent fruits were lawfully obtained (see People v Rodriguez, 84 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]). 2013Since there was a valid custodial arrest for the open container violation, the officer’s search of defendant incident to that arrest was proper, and the subsequent fruits were lawfully obtained (see People v Rodriguez, 84 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Maria De Lourdes Torres v. Police Officer Jonesgreen1 sentence2022In this case, neither party was entitled to summary judgment because triable issues of fact exist as to whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for an open container violation ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759-760 [2016]; Mendez v City of New York , 137 AD3d 468, 471 [1st Dept 2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2022In this case, neither party was entitled to summary judgment because triable issues of fact exist as to whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for an open container violation ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759-760 [2016]; Mendez v City of New York , 137 AD3d 468, 471 [1st Dept 2016]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rayamgreen1 sentence2017The defendant’s acquittal of the open-container violation does not, given the entire record of the trial, convince us otherwise (see People v Martin, 222 AD2d 528, 529 [1995]; see generally People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 , 563 n [2000]; cf. People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d 527, 529-530 [2008]; cf. generally People v Yarrell, 75 NY2d 828 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martingreen1 sentence2017The defendant’s acquittal of the open-container violation does not, given the entire record of the trial, convince us otherwise (see People v Martin, 222 AD2d 528, 529 [1995]; see generally People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 , 563 n [2000]; cf. People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d 527, 529-530 [2008]; cf. generally People v Yarrell, 75 NY2d 828 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lindseygreen1 sentence2017The defendant’s acquittal of the open-container violation does not, given the entire record of the trial, convince us otherwise (see People v Martin, 222 AD2d 528, 529 [1995]; see generally People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 , 563 n [2000]; cf. People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d 527, 529-530 [2008]; cf. generally People v Yarrell, 75 NY2d 828 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. JOHNSON (JAMES)green1 sentence2008The inventory search of defendant’s bag was properly executed pursuant to established Police Department procedure, was supported by sufficient documentation and was not conducted as a ruse to discover incriminating evidence (see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 252, 256 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Troianogreen1 sentence2002Under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, a full search of a person incident to a lawful custodial arrest “is not only an exception to the warrant requirement * * *, but is also a ‘reasonable’ search under that Amendment” (Robinson, 414 US at 235 ; see People v Troiano, 35 NY2d 476, 478 ). | 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. Potter
green
2 sentences2013Since there was a valid custodial arrest for the open container violation, the officer’s search of defendant incident to that arrest was proper, and the subsequent fruits were lawfully obtained (see People v Rodriguez, 84 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]). 2013Since there was a valid custodial arrest for the open container violation, the officer’s search of defendant incident to that arrest was proper, and the subsequent fruits were lawfully obtained (see People v Rodriguez, 84 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Yarrell
green
1 sentence2017The defendant’s acquittal of the open-container violation does not, given the entire record of the trial, convince us otherwise (see People v Martin, 222 AD2d 528, 529 [1995]; see generally People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 , 563 n [2000]; cf. People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d 527, 529-530 [2008]; cf. generally People v Yarrell, 75 NY2d 828 [1990]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Barclay
green
1 sentence2002We conclude that the search of defendant’s person conducted incident to defendant’s arrest for the open container violation did not violate defendant’s rights under the US Constitution Fourth Amendment (see United States v Robinson, 414 US 218, 235 ) or the NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (see People v Welch, 289 AD2d 936 ; People v Glasgow, 272 AD2d 914 , lv denied 95 NY2d 852 ; People v Barclay, 201 AD2d 952 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2002We conclude that the search of defendant’s person conducted incident to defendant’s arrest for the open container violation did not violate defendant’s rights under the US Constitution Fourth Amendment (see United States v Robinson, 414 US 218, 235 ) or the NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (see People v Welch, 289 AD2d 936 ; People v Glasgow, 272 AD2d 914 , lv denied 95 NY2d 852 ; People v Barclay, 201 AD2d 952 ). 2002Under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, a full search of a person incident to a lawful custodial arrest “is not only an exception to the warrant requirement * * *, but is also a ‘reasonable’ search under that Amendment” (Robinson, 414 US at 235 ; see People v Troiano, 35 NY2d 476, 478 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Glasgow
green
1 sentence2002We conclude that the search of defendant’s person conducted incident to defendant’s arrest for the open container violation did not violate defendant’s rights under the US Constitution Fourth Amendment (see United States v Robinson, 414 US 218, 235 ) or the NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (see People v Welch, 289 AD2d 936 ; People v Glasgow, 272 AD2d 914 , lv denied 95 NY2d 852 ; People v Barclay, 201 AD2d 952 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Welch
neutral
1 sentence2002We conclude that the search of defendant’s person conducted incident to defendant’s arrest for the open container violation did not violate defendant’s rights under the US Constitution Fourth Amendment (see United States v Robinson, 414 US 218, 235 ) or the NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (see People v Welch, 289 AD2d 936 ; People v Glasgow, 272 AD2d 914 , lv denied 95 NY2d 852 ; People v Barclay, 201 AD2d 952 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.