STATE'S HIGH COURT TO HEAR CASES ON "DESTRUCTIVE" POLICE SEARCHES

ALBANY, N.Y. - The state's highest court will decide during its September
term whether police have the legal right to conduct "destructive" searches
after a subject gives his consent to a police inspection.

The Court of Appeals will hear arguments Thursday on whether to overturn
Felix Gomez's conviction on drug possession charges and his prison sentence
of seven years to life due to a police search Gomez argues went well beyond
what he thought he was allowing.

On Sept. 27, 2001, New York City police officers pulled Gomez over for
driving a car with dark-tinted windows.

Sgt. William Planeta looked beneath the car and saw fresh undercoating on
the gas tank.

Suspecting the car might have a hidden compartment for drugs, Planeta asked
for permission to search the car.

Gomez gave his consent.

During the search Planeta removed the Honda's rear seat and then pulled up
the floor's carpeting when he determined it wasn't the car's original
flooring. Finding a cut in the floor panel, Planeta used a pocket knife to
pry open it further.

Seeing a plastic bag, he then used a crowbar to expose a hidden compartment
holding more than 1 1/2 pounds of cocaine.

Gomez' attorney argues in his appeal that "a reasonable motorist, trying to
expedite a police encounter, would not believe that his general consent to
a car search empowered the police to engage in a destructive search by, for
example, ripping up car carpeting and prying open the floorboards with a
crowbar."

An appellate court upheld Gomez's conviction, concluding the officer did
not exceed the scope of Gomez's consent because Gomez failed to place any
limitations on the search, and did not object to the search as it was
conducted.

The Court of Appeals is expected to hand down written rulings this fall in
the cases it hears this month. Among the other cases on the judges' calendar:

_The court will consider whether the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey may be held liable for injuries to the wife of an authority
employee. She claims she suffered cancer because of her secondhand exposure
to asbestos while laundering her husband's clothes.

Two lower courts ruled the negligence claim by John Holdampf and his wife,
Elizabeth, against the Port Authority should go to trial.

Elizabeth Holdampf argues the cancer she was diagnosed with in 2001 was a
direct result of being exposed to the asbestos dust on her husband's
clothing. The couple argues the authority was negligent in failing to warn
its employees of the dangers posed by their asbestos laden clothing.

_The judges will determine if the children of a man, who was put up for
adoption as a child but later reconciled with his biological mother, have a
claim to the assets the mother willed to her son.

The Steuben County Surrogate Court determined that the children of Clair
Willard Manning, who died almost a year before his birth mother, Mildred
Murphy, do not have the right to claim the assets left to Manning.

The lawyers for Murphy's sister-in-law, Evelyn Beckman, argued that because
Manning was mentioned in the will only by name, not as a son, and the will
gave no direction as to what should be done with the assets if he died
first, the assets should then be left to Beckman, the only other person
named in the will.

_In a case that could have implications across the state, The Saratoga
County town of Moreau is seeking to overturn a decision giving the Pine
Knolls Alliance Church the right to build a second road on its property.
The town has objected because of traffic, noise and water run-off problems
with the plan.

An appellate court, overturning a lower-court ruling, determined the local
zoning board had no right to turn down the church's application to build
the road as part of an expansion. It ruled Moreau could only look at the
whole expansion and determine its overall impact on the public's welfare.

The town's attorney argues that would give churches "unfettered discretion
to expand into residential communities no matter how detrimental or unsafe
such expansion might be to the community."

_A New York City landlord is seeking to evict a couple from their
rent-stabilized apartment in the Bronx. The landlord argues that the couple
no longer uses the apartment as their primary residence.

Although the husband, S. Lee Lipsman, has taken the couple's Florida
condominium as his primary home, Lillian Lipsman still considers the Bronx
apartment her primary residence. She lives there about six months a year.

The landlord, Glenbriar Co., says the Lipsmans use the Florida address on
their joint tax returns to avoid having to pay state and city taxes, while
still benefiting from low rent under government rent stabilization.

Under New York rent laws, Glenbriar could raise the rent on the apartment
with a new tenant.

On the Net:

Court of Appeals:
(http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps)http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps