THE PEOPLE, & C., APPELLANT, v. LEONARDO TURRIAGO, RESPONDENT.
90 N.Y.2d 77, 681 N.E.2d 350, 659 N.Y.S.2d 183 (1997).
May 13, 1997
(Case Commentary by the Editorial Board)
1 No. 78 (1997 NY Int. 81)
Decided May 13, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Penny Rosenberg, for Appellant.
Mark Gimpel, for Respondent.
LEVINE, J.:
The People appeal, pursuant to permission granted by a Justice of the
Appellate Division, from an order of that court reversing a judgment
of conviction of defendant of murder in the second degree, of weapons
and cocaine possession and of tampering with physical evidence, and
granting defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and his
incriminating statements.
The People make two arguments on their appeal. First, they argue that,
contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Division, the requirement
of a founded suspicion of criminal activity does not apply when the
police seek consent to search a vehicle following a stop for a traffic
violation (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; People De Bour, 40
NY2d 210). In the alternative, the People argue that, assuming the De
Bour-Hollman standard applies and results in the invalidation of the
consent search conducted by the State police here, the Appellate
Division mistakenly rejected, as a matter of law, application of the
inevitable discovery doctrine to all of the incriminating evidence
obtained by the police emanating from the search.
We conclude that the first argument, having not been preserved, is
beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Unlike the trial courts and the
Appellate Division, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to issues of
law and, with extremely limited exceptions (none of which is
applicable here), issues that have not been preserved in the trial
court are beyond our power of review. As to the second argument, the
People timely proposed to the trial court the application of the
inevitable discovery doctrine as an alternative ground for denial of
SNIPPETS:
Penny Rosenberg, for Appellant.
Mark Gimpel, for Respondent.
The People appeal, pursuant to permission granted by a Justice of the Appellate Division,
First, they argue that, contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Division, the requirement
In the alternative, the People argue that, assuming the De Bour-Hollman standard applies and
Supreme Court found that defendant readily expressed his willingness to permit the search of
However, the necessity of a founded suspicion of criminal activity before the troopers were
Nor was preservation of that question of law regarding the application of the De Bour-Hollman
Unlike the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division as an intermediate court of review has
That doctrine is one of three general exceptions to the application of the exclusionary rule
We first recognized the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusion of evidence "tainted"
There is considerable authority for applying the inevitable discovery doctrine when the proof
US 853;
|
