From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Antoine

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 20, 1992
79 N.Y.2d 888 (N.Y. 1992)

Opinion

Argued January 7, 1992

Decided February 20, 1992

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Mary Bednar, J.

Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel (Stephen J. McGrath and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth Rabb and Lenore Gittis for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Although the police had an "objective credible reason" for approaching the defendant, the pointed questioning regarding the ownership of the bag and consent to search it was improper because it was not based on a founded suspicion of criminal activity (People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 215). Because the defendant's consent was a product of the improper police inquiry, the Family Court erred when it found that the defendant had consented to the search of his bag (see, People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181 [decided today]).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur; Judge ALEXANDER taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Antoine

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 20, 1992
79 N.Y.2d 888 (N.Y. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Antoine

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANTOINE W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 20, 1992

Citations

79 N.Y.2d 888 (N.Y. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 648
590 N.E.2d 233

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

Our reversal of the suppression order is, of course, based on the view that no unlawful police conduct…

People v. Bordeaux

Judgment reversed on the law, motion granted and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: Even if the police had an…