Rochester, New York
16 W Main Street, Suite 204
Rochester, NY 14614
(585) 546-5072
With 34 years of legal victories under his belt and countless satisfied clients behind him, Thomas A. Corletta, Attorney & Counselor at Law comes highly recommended.

Case Review: People v. B.L. July 27, 2018

Rochester, Monroe
Case Review: People v. B.L., Rochester, New York

        People v. B.L. (Gates Tn. Ct., 7/19/18)


In a difficult Driving While Intoxicated case, Mr. Corletta obtained suppression of key evidence, in the form of empty personal sized wine bottles, seized from his client's vehicle, in People v. B.L. (Gates Tn. Ct., 7/19/18).


In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated after sliding off the roadway during a snowstorm. Following the arrest, the officer testified he conducted an “inventory search” of the client's vehicle, and found empty personal sized wine bottles.


However, the officer failed to testify as to any of the necessary prerequisites for an inventory search; i.e. following police department regulations, or compiling a valid inventory of Defendant’s vehicle.


Noticing this, and knowing the law regarding inventory searches, which are supposed to be for the protection of property, Mr. Corletta conducted cross-examination, in which he further questioned the officer as to the legal requirements for inventory searches. The officer admitted he had not followed any of the proper procedures mandated by caselaw and the Constitution.


Mr. Corletta promptly made an application to suppress the wine bottles. The District Attorney vigorously opposed, claiming the wine bottles were in plain view. However, the District Attorney also failed to elicit any evidence of plain view during the People’s direct case.


Mr. Corletta, again citing relevant case law, argued the People could not rely on a theory on which they had not elicited any proof at the hearing. The Court completely agreed with Mr. Corletta, and in a Decision rendered from the bench, suppressed all the wine bottles, which cannot be used against his client.


In a difficult case, a key piece of evidence can not be used against Mr. Corletta’s client. Once again, Mr. Corletta employed criminal law concepts largely used in drug cases to benefit a client in a Driving While Intoxicated case, where many other attorneys would not have made any such objection.

Other Announcements, Events and Deals from Thomas A. Corletta, Attorney at Law
A Guide to New York’s Prosecution Tactics for Opioid Possession  , Rochester, New York
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, more than 115 Americans die per day from opioid overdoses. This has become a public health crisis that many states are trying to more
Case Review: People v. V.J., Rochester, New York
People v. V.J. (Rochester City Ct., 3/29/19)     In a seemingly hopeless case, where his client was found with alcohol in the car, accused of erratic driving and a .25 more
3 Misconceptions About New York's Weapon Possession Laws, Rochester, New York
New York takes weapon possession very seriously, with many weapon possession charges carrying mandatory prison sentences if convicted. If you have been charged with weapons more
What Are the Penalties for Refusing a Breath Test in New York?, Rochester, New York
New York has an implied consent law, which means that as a condition of holding a driver license, you will submit to a chemical test of your breath, blood, urine, or saliva if more
How the #MeToo Movement Is Shaping the Criminal Justice System, Rochester, New York
The #MeToo movement has brought significant changes to organizations across the country, but its effect in the courtroom and criminal justice system may be the most dramatic. In the more