People v. Winkfield
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
We reject the defendant’s contention that his statement to a law enforcement official should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. Under the circumstances presented here, the arrest of the defendant by Florida authorities was law*960ful. The Florida authorities relied on a New York State arrest warrant and, therefore, could presume that the New York authorities had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see generally People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]). Furthermore, at the suppression hearing, it was clearly demonstrated that the New York authorities had probable cause…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. BeneventoNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- People v. HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. KoniecznyNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. ShawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. WilkinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. Jin Cheng LinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. Perez-OlivoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. ClarkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.