LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

THE PEOPLE &C. v ERIC MORE, A/K/A BRIAN SMITH Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0020, Police, Arrest, Evidence, Intrusions, Drugs, Suppress, Incident, Warrant, Substance, Officer, Body Cavity, Requiring, Reasonableness, Seizure, Amendment, Justify, Blood, Appellant, Opinion, Penal Law, Cocaine, Extract, Strip Search, United States, Motion, Absence, County Court, Schmerber , ContentID: 120251775

Case Documents
1   OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125684
4 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ARREST
EVIDENCE
COURT
DEFENDANT
INTRUSIONS
DRUGS
SUPPRESS
INCIDENT
WARRANT
SUBSTANCE
OFFICER
BODY CAVITY
REQUIRING
REASONABLENESS
SEIZURE
AMENDMENT
JUSTIFY
BLOOD
APPELLANT
OPINION
PENAL LAW
COCAINE
EXTRACT
STRIP SEARCH
UNITED STATES
MOTION
ABSENCE
COUNTY COURT
SCHMERBER


   3 No. 3
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Eric More, a/k/a Brian Smith,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 20

   February 19, 2002

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Sandra J. McCarthy, for appellant.
   Bruce E. Knoll, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   LEVINE, J.:

   Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled
   substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16(1)), criminal
   possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law
   § 220.06(5)), resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) and false
   personation (Penal Law § 190.23). The drug possession counts
   related to 2.37 grams of crack cocaine which the police extracted from
   defendant's rectum during a strip search incident to his arrest. The
   dispositive issue on this appeal is the validity of that seizure under
   the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

   Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the drugs seized from his
   person. At the suppression hearing, a detective in the Troy Police
   Department Special Operations Unit testified that he and several other
   officers entered an apartment after obtaining the tenant's permission
   to do so. The tenant told the police that individuals in the apartment
   were "cutting up cocaine" for sale and that one of the subjects was
   wanted on an arrest warrant for assaulting a police officer. Upon
   entering the apartment, the detective saw defendant sitting on a couch
   with a woman on his lap. He also saw a "crack pipe and small piece of
   white rocklike substance" on a nearby table. Based upon his training
   and experience, the detective believed the substance was crack
   cocaine. The police arrested defendant and the woman, ordered them
   onto the floor, handcuffed them and conducted a "quick pat-down"
   search for weapons. No weapons were found.

SNIPPETS:
  • Sandra J. McCarthy, for appellant.
  • Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree
  • The drug possession counts related to 2.37 grams of crack cocaine which the police extracted
  • defendant moved to suppress the drugs seized from his person.
  • The tenant told the police that individuals in the apartment were "cutting up cocaine" for
  • In his motion to suppress the drugs seized from his person, defendant focused his challenge
  • In addition, he specifically averred that the body cavity search was "illegal and effected in
  • A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal,
  • The uncontested facts are that after defendant was stripped, the police seized evidence
  • The Supreme Court of the United States addressed the constitutionality of a seizure involving
  • Recognizing that it was "writon a clean slate," the Court held that the police were justified
  • The Court framed the relevant issues as "whether the police were justified in requiring
  • After concluding that the police had probable cause to arrest the petitioner for driving
  • Finally, the Schmerber Court concluded that the procedure used to extract the blood from the
  • body cavity searches incident to an arrest are at least as intrusive as blood test procedures.
  • Even assuming that the extraction of the drugs satisfied all of Schmerber's other
  • Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant's motion to
  •    |