People v. Smith

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 54 N.Y.2d 954, 445 N.Y.S.2d 145, 429 N.E.2d 823, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3153

Decision Date: 10/22/1981

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Smith, 54 N.Y.2d 954, 445 N.Y.S.2d 145, 429 N.E.2d 823, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3153 (1981)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1981

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 57 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.31

N.Y. Sup. Ct.11

N.Y.9

2d Cir.1

Albany Cty. Ct.1

Minn.1

Most recently cited by10

2019People v. Tantao N.Y. App. Div.
2002People v. Bonilla N.Y. App. Div.
1991People v. Lane N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1990People v. Bing N.Y.
1989People v. Herring N.Y. App. Div.
1989People v. Gates N.Y. App. Div.
1989People v. Torres N.Y. App. Div.
1989People v. Bell N.Y.
1988People v. McEachern N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1987People v. Shavers N.Y.

Cites 2 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald C. Smith, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Joseph A. Shifflett, Rose H. Sconiers and Joseph B. Mistrett for appellant.
Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney (John J. De Franks and Timothy R. Harvey of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the statements obtained from defendant suppressed, and a new trial granted.

There is no question that the officer who questioned defendant knew that defendant had been arrested eight months earlier on a sodomy charge by the same police department. Indeed the officer testified that he assumed that defendant had an attorney on that charge. Since he had actual notice, the officer was “under an obligation to inquire whether defendant was represented by an attorney” on the earlier charge (People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225, 232; see People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610, 617-618).

There is, however, no basis for suppression of the evidence obtained from the vehicle used by defendant. There is an affirmed finding of consent of the registered owner, the woman with whom defendant was then living. The fact that she was told the police had a search warrant (later found in validly issued) before she said “it wouldn’t be necessary, that she would cooperate and [the police] could look at the car, to do anything we want to do” does not mandate a finding that she was simply acquiescing to the execution of the warrant rather than consenting to the search.