PEOPLE, res, v. LUIGI JAQUEZ, def-ap

4056. PEOPLE, res, v. LUIGI JAQUEZ, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alan Gadlin of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O. at suppression hearing; Eduardo Padro, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered October 29, 2014, as amended December 2, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4056. PEOPLE, res, v. LUIGI JAQUEZ, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alan Gadlin of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O. at suppression hearing; Eduardo Padro, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered October 29, 2014, as amended December 2, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied the motion to suppress drugs recovered from defendant’s person. While the record demonstrates that they were discovered as the result of a statement that was suppressed, they were nevertheless admissible pursuant to the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Because defendant would have been subjected to several thorough searches following his arrest, there was a “very high degree of probability” that “normal police procedures” would inevitably have led to the discovery of the drugs, even without the statement (People v. Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 86 [1997]; see also Silver, 178 AD2d at 500). In light of this determination, as in People v. Garcia (132 AD3d 405, 406 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1039 [2015]), “we find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether, given United States Supreme Court authority to the contrary (see United States v. Patane, 542 US 630 [2004]), physical evidence may be suppressed as fruit of a Miranda violation.”

PEOPLE, res, v. LUIGI JAQUEZ, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal