Summary
In Battaglia (82 A.D.2d 389, 395-396, supra), the dissent, adopted by the Court of Appeals, started out: "The established rule that the custodial detention and search of a suspect without probable cause is an illegal invasion of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution compels me to dissent" (emphasis added).
Summary of this case from People v. HicksOpinion
Argued February 12, 1982
Decided March 25, 1982
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, FREDERICK M. MARSHALL, J.
Joseph A. Shifflett, Rose H. Sconiers and Joseph B. Mistrett for appellant.
Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney ( John J. De Franks and Dennis C. Vacco of counsel), for respondent.
Order reversed, defendant's motion to suppress granted, and a new trial ordered for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice STEWART F. HANCOCK, JR., at the Appellate Division ( 82 A.D.2d 395-397).
Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.