Case Citation
Legal Case Name

People v. Defore Case Brief

New York Court of Appeals1926Docket #3471378
150 N.E. 585 242 N.Y. 13 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 956 Criminal Procedure Evidence Constitutional Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: New York’s highest court held that evidence obtained from an illegal police search is admissible in a state criminal trial, famously reasoning that a criminal should not go free “because the constable has blundered.”

Legal Significance: This landmark case represents the influential state-level rejection of the exclusionary rule prior to its mandatory application to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, establishing a strong precedent for admitting illegally seized evidence in state courts.

People v. Defore Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

A police officer arrested the defendant, Defore, in the hallway of his boarding house for the misdemeanor of petit larceny. The arrest was unlawful because the officer did not witness the defendant commit or attempt to commit the crime. Following the unlawful arrest, the officer entered and searched the defendant’s room without a warrant. The search uncovered a bag containing a blackjack, an illegal weapon. The defendant was subsequently acquitted of the larceny charge but was indicted for criminal possession of the blackjack. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the blackjack as evidence, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure in violation of New York’s Civil Rights Law § 8. The trial court denied the motion, and the blackjack was admitted into evidence, leading to the defendant’s conviction. The defendant appealed, arguing the admission of illegally obtained evidence violated his state statutory rights against unreasonable searches and his state constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Must evidence obtained by a state officer through an unreasonable search and seizure, conducted in violation of state law, be excluded from a criminal proceeding in a New York state court?

No. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence obtained through an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore e

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Must evidence obtained by a state officer through an unreasonable search and seizure, conducted in violation of state law, be excluded from a criminal proceeding in a New York state court?

Conclusion

This case established New York's firm rejection of the exclusionary rule for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep

Legal Rule

Evidence of criminality is not incompetent or inadmissible in a New York Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis

Legal Analysis

Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Cardozo conceded that the search of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor i

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • New York rejects the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through an
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+