In re Westchester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Lazer, J.
The principal issue here is whether there must be suppression of illegally seized evidence when the matter to be tried is a child protective proceeding under Family Court Act article 10. Upon weighing the likely deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule against its detrimental impact upon the fact-finding process and the State’s enormous interest in protecting the welfare of children, we conclude that the rule should not be applied in such proceedings. Rather, its deterrence purpose will be adequately served by the fact that any evidence seized pursuant to an…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- In re Tammie Z.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- In re Ella B.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- In re Katrina W.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- In re Daqwuan G.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job & Family ServicesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2003
- Matter of Leenasia C. (Lamarriea C.--Maxie B.)Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- State ex rel. A.R. & C.P. v. C.R.Utah Supreme Court · 1999
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.