From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Antoine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2001
285 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued June 8, 2001.

July 30, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered February 3, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Robert C. Wilkie, Suffern, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Michael E. Bongiorno, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Ann C. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

An inventory search of a vehicle, which is an exception to the search warrant requirement, must be both reasonable and conducted pursuant to a "single familiar standard" or established police agency procedure (People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 716, see, Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375; Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1). The "single familiar standard" or established police procedure must meet two criteria. "First, the procedure must be rationally designed to meet the objectives that justify the search in the first place * * * Second, the procedure must limit the discretion of the officer in the field" (People v. Galak, supra, at 719). The establishment of such limits "assures that the searches are carried out consistently and reasonably and do not become little more than an excuse for general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence" (People v. Galak, supra, at 719).

Here, the detective's testimony and the inventory form which he completed soon after the search were sufficient to establish that he had followed police procedure rationally designed to meet the objectives justifying such a search, and which effectively limited his discretion so as to assure that he was not simply rummaging for incriminating evidence. The defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Antoine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2001
285 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Antoine

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ARTHUR ANTOINE, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 30, 2001

Citations

285 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 388

Citing Cases

People v. Kearney

It is well settled that for a warrantless inventory search to be permissible, it must be both reasonable and…