From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Overton

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 18, 1966
51 Misc. 2d 140 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)

Opinion

May 18, 1966

Appeal from the Court of Special Sessions, JOHN P. GRIFFITH, J.

David C. Gilberg for appellant.

Leonard Rubenfeld, District Attorney ( B. Anthony Morosco of counsel), for respondent.


The warrant, insofar as it directed a search of defendant's locker in a public high school, was vacated by the trial court. The search was illegal and cannot be justified upon the theory of consent on the part of the vice-principal of said school. Defendant had the exclusive use of the locker in question and the purported consent to search it was not binding upon him. The confession obtained from defendant, being the product of the illegal search and seizure, was inadmissible against him ( People v. Rodriguez, 11 N.Y.2d 279, 286). Absent any competent evidence upon which the conviction can be upheld, we are constrained to dismiss the information.

The judgment and order denying motion to suppress evidence should be reversed on the law, motion granted and information dismissed.

McDONALD and GROAT, JJ., concur; FANELLI, J., not voting.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Overton

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 18, 1966
51 Misc. 2d 140 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
Case details for

People v. Overton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS OVERTON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: May 18, 1966

Citations

51 Misc. 2d 140 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
273 N.Y.S.2d 143

Citing Cases

People v. Overton

The Trial Judge denied the motion, stating in part that "The Board of Education, through Dr. Panitz, retained…

Overton v. Rieger

The history of this case follows. After having been adjudicated a youthful offender and placed on indefinite…