AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant's challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of her purse following a traffic stop and subsequent arrest. The Defendant asserts that the search of her purse was impermissible.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argues that the search of her purse was impermissible.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the search of the Defendant's purse was permissible following her arrest.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition, which affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress (para 1). The Defendant did not contest the validity of the traffic stop but continued to assert the impermissibility of the purse search. The court noted a potential issue with the preservation of this argument for appeal, as it was not adequately raised or preserved at the lower level (paras 3-4). Even if the argument had been preserved, the court found the search of the Defendant's purse permissible under the doctrines of search incident to arrest and inventory search, given the purse's location in the center console was accessible to the Defendant at the time of arrest (para 5).