People v. Waring

5 Citing cases

  1. Tsui Yuan Tseng v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.

    122 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that claims arising from a routine security check did not arise from an "accident" and that the Warsaw Convention was inapplicable

    To this end, courts have recognized that airport security officials are to some extent freed from the exacting requirements typically attached to governmental searches of individuals. See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667, 675 (2d Cir. 1972) (Friendly, C.J., concurring); New York v. Waring, 174 A.D.2d 16, 19 (App. Div. 2d Dep't), appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 1009 (1992). To suppose the drafters of the Convention aimed to impose close to absolute liability on air carriers for searches that disclosed no danger seems to us highly unlikely.

  2. Matter of Adewumi

    185 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

    We conclude that, under the circumstances extant here, the customs inspector reasonably suspected that the appellant was smuggling contraband in his alimentary canal (see, United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531; see also, United States v Asbury, 586 F.2d 973, 976-977). His contention that his detention for six hours was violative of the Fourth Amendment is thus without merit (see, United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, supra; see also, People v. Waring, 174 A.D.2d 16; cf., People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181) and the Family Court properly declined his motion to suppress physical evidence. We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

  3. People v. Spalding

    3 Misc. 3d 1052 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2004)

    Without question, subjecting a person's bag to x-ray analysis constitutes a search. See People v. Waring, 174 A.D.2d 16 (2nd Dept. 1992); People v. Ross, 157 A.D.2d 808 (2nd Dept. 1990). Initial x-ray screening of the contents of visitor's bags for weapons is a moderately intrusive and completely reasonable method of screening for weapons and providing the protection required for individuals in courthouses and other government buildings.

  4. People v. Spalding

    3 Misc. 3d 1052 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2004)

    Without question, subjecting a person's bag to X-ray analysis constitutes a search. (See People v Waring, 174 AD2d 16 [2d Dept 1992]; People v Ross, 157 AD2d 808 [2d Dept 1990].) Initial X-ray screening of the contents of visitors' bags for weapons is a moderately intrusive and completely reasonable method of screening for weapons and providing the protection required for individuals in courthouses and other government buildings.

  5. People v. Dukes

    151 Misc. 2d 295 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1992)   Cited 15 times
    Approving suspicionless searches of high school students using a metal detector for purposes of deterring students from bringing weapons to school

    (33 N.Y.2d, supra, at 210.) Virtually every other court which has considered the propriety of magnetometer searches at airports has reached the same result. (See, e.g., United States v Davis, 482 F.2d 893 [9th Cir 1973]; cf., People v Waring, 174 A.D.2d 16.) A second public building where administrative searches have become increasingly popular is the courthouse.