People v. Roth
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Ratcliff (Colo. 1989)
- People v. Diaz (N.Y. 1993)
- Musgrove v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)
- People v. Larkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Brockington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Perry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People v. Shackleford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Carlton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Camber (New York County Courts 2000)
- People v. Maldonado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Hanson (Nassau County District Court 1998)
- People v. Rodgers (New York County Courts 1997)
- People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Perolta-Rua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Diaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Broome (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Hines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Navarro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Henry (New York Supreme Court 1991)
- In re Doris A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Montero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Clark (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- People v. Hoffman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress granted and the indictment dismissed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the affirmed finding that the police officer’s conduct in frisking defendant was based on a reasonable fear that defendant may have been armed (see, People v Davis, 64 NY2d 1143; People v Klass, 55 NY2d 821). Nonetheless, defendant’s motion to suppress the papers removed from his jacket pocket, which upon inspection turned out to be gambling records, should have been granted. Once any reasonable basis for the officer’s fear for his safety had abated, he was not justified in seizing the papers, which were folded over and secured with a rubber band, and causing the packet to be unwrapped and examined (cf. People v McGriff, 99 AD2d 818).
No claim is made, nor indeed could any claim be made under the circumstances of this case, that the seizure of the personal papers was incident to a lawful custodial arrest (United States v Robinson, 414 US 218). Rather, the People seek to justify the seizure under the "plain view” and "inevitable discovery” exceptions to the warrant requirement (US Const 4th Amend).
The "plain view” exception is inapplicable. The discovery was not "inadvertent rather than anticipated” (People v Basilicato, 64 NY2d 103, 115; People v Spinelli, 35 NY2d 77, 81) because the papers were "discovered” as a result of the officer’s opening the bundled papers, properly taken from defendant during a frisk, although it was not immediately apparent that the papers seized were evidence of criminality (see, Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 446-447; People v Milaski, 62 NY2d 147, 154, n 1). The record is devoid of evidence that the officer knew that the papers were gambling records or that, by their outward appearance, they were readily identifiable as such (see, Walter v United States, 447 US 649, 653; Stanley v Georgia, 394 US 557, 559).
The "inevitable discovery” exception likewise is inapplicable to the facts of this case. The officer permitted defendant to "remove his personal property” after indicating that the
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.