Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Renaldo JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J. at hearing; Brenda Soloff, J. at plea and sentence), rendered April 28, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, to a term of 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant's claim that the People failed to establish that the search of the car was in accordance with standard inventory procedures is unpreserved (People v. Dickens, 218 A.D.2d 584, 630 N.Y.S.2d 737, affd. 88 N.Y.2d 1031, 651 N.Y.S.2d 10, 673 N.E.2d 1237), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the evidence established the reasonableness of the police action (People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386, 477 N.Y.S.2d 103, 465 N.E.2d 823). Defendant, who was properly stopped for a traffic violation, was seen making a lunging movement towards the floor of the front passenger area of the car just as he was pulled over. The police were entitled to impound and inventory the car because defendant had neither a driver's license nor registration papers for the car and therefore could not drive it. The officer testified that, in accordance with standard police procedure, defendant was to be transported to the precinct, while the vehicle was to be “secured” and its contents determined. Under the circumstances, the police were justified in conducting a limited search of the area where he was seen lunging prior to making a more complete inventory search at the precinct (People v. Dickens, supra ). There is no basis in the record to conclude that the search was made in bad faith or that the officers conducted an indiscriminate search of the car without regard to the underlying objectives of an inventory search (compare, People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 18, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)