From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 11, 1991
170 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 11, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements is granted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the People failed to meet their heavy burden of establishing that the defendant's consent to examine the contents of the paper bags located between the front bucket-seats of the vehicle driven by him was voluntarily given and not the result of duress, either express or implied (see, Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248; People v Whitehurst, 25 N.Y.2d 389; People v Gonzalez, 115 A.D.2d 73, 79-81, affd 68 N.Y.2d 950). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 11, 1991
170 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE JAMES BELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 11, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

People v. LaRose

Morrow, although a passenger, has standing to contest the search because he was later charged on a statutory…

People v. LaRose

The People have a heavy burden to establish the voluntariness of consent to a vehicle search. ( People v.…