CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Boffardi

The defendant, Patsy Boffardi, was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) by knowingly receiving child pornography, an offense that arose from Project Looking Glass, a postal inspection service operation. Boffardi was identified from a customer list, responded to undercover solicitations, and ordered child pornography, leading to a controlled delivery and the execution of a search warrant at his home. He subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment and suppress certain statements and seized evidence, primarily arguing selective prosecution based on the possession of other child pornography and an improperly obtained search warrant. The court, presided over by District Judge Goettel, denied all of Boffardi's motions. The judge found that the prosecution's criteria for selection were based on legitimate procedural considerations, not impermissible selective prosecution, and upheld the validity of the anticipatory search warrant.

Child PornographyEntrapmentSelective ProsecutionFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsSearch WarrantControlled DeliverySting OperationPredisposition
References
15
Case No. 14-08-00037-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Oluwole Ajayi Gabriel v. State

A jury found appellant OLUWOLE AJAYI GABRIEL guilty of theft of $200,000.00 or more, and the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years confinement. Appellant raised four issues on appeal, contending errors in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of garbage and a private postal box, and alleging the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for venue. The appellate court found no error, affirming the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no expectation of privacy in trash left for collection, that the postal box search was valid due to agency consent, and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also found sufficient evidence to support venue in Fort Bend County.

theftFourth Amendmentmotion to suppresswarrantless searchprobable causesearch warrantvenuecredit card fraudprivate postal boxgarbage search
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2004

Rodgers v. State

Warren Keith Rodgers appealed his murder conviction in Wood County for the death of his wife, Amanda, who was killed on railroad tracks. Rodgers raised seven points of error, including challenges to the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence, the qualification of the State's expert on tire and shoe prints, the legality of a search warrant, the denial of a change of venue, and the refusal of a lesser-included offense instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence sufficient, the expert qualified, the search warrant valid, and no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on venue and jury instructions. It also rejected claims of due process and confrontation clause violations regarding victim statements, concluding they were not testimonial.

Murder convictionAppellate reviewEvidentiary sufficiencyExpert testimony admissibilityDaubert challengeFourth AmendmentSearch warrantChange of venue motionJury instructionsLesser included offense
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Marcario

A child protective services worker from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services sought a court order under Family Court Act section 1034 to search premises believed to house an abused child. The application stemmed from a hotline report alleging abuse by Joseph Marcario, which he and his wife denied, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The court denied the application, finding the supporting affidavit, based on double hearsay from an unnamed and unreliable informant, lacked the probable cause required for a search warrant under the CPL and Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized the importance of due process for alleged perpetrators and also criticized the over 90-day delay in filing the application after the initial report.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court ActSearch Warrant ApplicationProbable CauseHearsay EvidenceAguilar TestDue ProcessFourth AmendmentChild Abuse InvestigationSuffolk County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabriel v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggregated theft of over $200,000, involving a scheme of fraudulently obtained credit cards and false identities. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from warrantless searches of his garbage and private postal box, arguing Fourth Amendment violations. He also contended the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause and disputed the sufficiency of evidence for venue in Fort Bend County. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the searches lawful, the warrant supported by probable cause, and venue properly established.

TheftCredit Card FraudFourth AmendmentMotion to SuppressWarrantless SearchGarbage SearchPostal Box SearchProbable CauseSearch WarrantVenue
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. City of Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon Police Dept.

This case involved plaintiffs Joseph and Avis Lewis suing the Mount Vernon Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations due to an unreasonable search and seizure. Police executed a 'no-knock' search warrant at the Lewis' first-floor apartment, based on erroneous information linking it to a drug trafficking suspect, Charles Bowen, who actually resided on the second floor. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted the motion, determining that the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable, despite the mistaken information. The court also found the execution of the warrant, including the unannounced entry and temporary detention of occupants, to be reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1983 ClaimFourth Amendment RightsSearch and SeizureQualified Immunity DefenseSummary Judgment MotionPolice Warrant ExecutionNo-Knock EntryProbable Cause DeterminationMistaken IdentityDrug Trafficking Investigation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. No. 10
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2022

Jesus Ferreira v. City of Binghamton

Plaintiff Jesus Ferreira was shot by a police officer during the execution of a no-knock search warrant. The federal court found no special duty owed by the City of Binghamton and granted summary judgment to the City. The Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether the 'special duty' requirement applies to municipal negligence claims where the injury is directly inflicted by municipal negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed that a special duty is required for negligence claims against a municipality acting in a governmental capacity and clarified that such a duty can arise in the context of police planning and executing a no-knock search warrant, running to individuals within the targeted premises.

Municipal negligenceSpecial dutyGovernmental functionNo-knock warrantPolice liabilitySearch warrantDuty of careTort lawCourt of AppealsSecond Circuit
References
75
Showing 1-10 of 2,548 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational