PEOPLE v. GOMEZ


13 N.Y.3d 6 (2009)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. VICTOR GOMEZ, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided June 30, 2009.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Jung Park and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for appellant. Officer Vettell properly conducted an inventory search of Victor Gomez's car, which began at the scene and continued at the precinct. (People v Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252; People v Jackson, 279 A.D.2d 357; People v Figueroa, 6 A.D.3d 720; Illinois v Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640; People v Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715; Colorado v Bertine, 479 U.S. 367; Florida v Wells, 495 U.S. 1; People v Dickens, 218 A.D.2d 584, 88 N.Y.2d 1031; United States v Thompson, 29 F.3d 62; United States v Skillern, 947 F.2d 1268, 503 U.S. 949.)

DLA Piper LLP (US), New York City (Christopher C. Land of counsel), and Legal Aid Society (Steven Banks, David Crow and Andrew Fine of counsel) for respondent. I. The People of the State of New York's appeal should be dismissed because the Appellate Division's determination to reverse based on the failure to demonstrate that a valid inventory search was conducted was grounded on a mixed question of law and fact. (People v McCready, 68 N.Y.2d 981; People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470; People v Hallman, 92 N.Y.2d 840; People v Esquilin, 91 N.Y.2d 902; People v Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715; People v Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252; People v Hartman, 294 A.D.2d 446, 100 N.Y.2d 568; People v Montilla, 268 A.D.2d 270, 95 N.Y.2d 830; People v Reddick, 265 A.D.2d 855, 95 N.Y.2d 822; People v Powell, 92 N.Y.2d 886.) II. The Appellate Division properly determined that a warrantless search of a vehicle is not sustainable as an inventory search if the procedures of an inventory search are not described, there is no testimony that an inventory of all items was taken, and if the only "inventory" taken is incriminating evidence. (People v Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715; Colorado v Bertine, 479 U.S. 367; Florida v Wells, 495 U.S. 1; South Dakota v Opperman, 428 U.S. 364; People v Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252; People v Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386; Illinois v Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640; People v Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341; People v Minto, 272 A.D.2d 558; People v Colon, 202 A.D.2d 708.)

Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT concur; Chief Judge LIPPMAN taking no part.


OPINION OF THE COURT

JONES, J.

The issue before us is whether the People met their initial burden of establishing a valid inventory search. We hold that they have not.

On June 23, 2005, at approximately 12:45 A.M., two New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers were on patrol in a marked police car in Manhattan (area of 107th Street and Amsterdam Avenue) when one officer noticed a 1999 Dodge Stratus driving erratically. This officer conducted...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases