NY3: Motion to suppress is an adequate remedy at law, not a writ of prohibition

Defendant sought prohibition to prevent his prosecution because of an illegal search. He has an adequate remedy in a motion to suppress. Denied. Matter of Rodriguez v. Hobbs, 2023 NY Slip Op 05433,2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5399 (3d Dept. Oct. 26, 2023).

Plaintiff is a Japanese citizen working in the U.S. at the time. He was stopped and had his passport and an international driver’s license. The state charge of not having a DL in his possession failed completely under state precedent. The claim he was driving while impaired wasn’t supported by anything, and the blood draw 90 minutes later was .014. This “ordeal” got his visa cancelled and he had to return to Japan, and it all interfered with his work. A jury could conclude it all lacked probable cause and there is no qualified immunity. Akima v. Peca, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28464 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2023).*

The search warrant was based on an adequate basis of probable cause founded on fact and not speculation and conjecture about nexus and what might be found. State v. Gibson, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 826 (Oct. 23, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.