D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.

Judges

• Justice Mary Beth Whitehead

Q: What is D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. about?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. is a case decided by New York Appellate Division on January 26, 2025.

Q: What court decided D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. was decided by the New York Appellate Division, which is part of the NY state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. decided?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. was decided on January 26, 2025.

Q: What was the docket number in D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.?

The docket number for D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. is Index No. 519403/2019. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: What is the citation for D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.?

The citation for D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. is 2025 NY Slip Op 25017. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: Is D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. published?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. cover?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. covers the following legal topics: Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Fourth Amendment rights, Warrant requirement, Probable cause, Exigent circumstances.

Q: What was the ruling in D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.?

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.. Key holdings: The court held that the warrantless installation and use of a GPS tracker on a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.; The court determined that the defendant's actions were unreasonable and violated the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy.; The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the Fourth Amendment violation.; The court rejected the defendant's argument that the warrantless installation of the GPS tracker was justified by exigent circumstances.; The court held that the defendant's use of the GPS tracker without the plaintiff's consent was a violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights..

Q: Why is D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. important?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. has an impact score of 85/100, indicating very high legal significance. This case sets an important precedent for the application of the Fourth Amendment to the use of GPS technology. It reinforces the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and may impact future cases involving the use of similar technology.

Q: What precedent does D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. set?

D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the warrantless installation and use of a GPS tracker on a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. (2) The court determined that the defendant's actions were unreasonable and violated the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy. (3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the Fourth Amendment violation. (4) The court rejected the defendant's argument that the warrantless installation of the GPS tracker was justified by exigent circumstances. (5) The court held that the defendant's use of the GPS tracker without the plaintiff's consent was a violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights.

Q: What are the key holdings in D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.?

1. The court held that the warrantless installation and use of a GPS tracker on a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. 2. The court determined that the defendant's actions were unreasonable and violated the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy. 3. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the Fourth Amendment violation. 4. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the warrantless installation of the GPS tracker was justified by exigent circumstances. 5. The court held that the defendant's use of the GPS tracker without the plaintiff's consent was a violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights.

Q: How does D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. affect me?

This case sets an important precedent for the application of the Fourth Amendment to the use of GPS technology. It reinforces the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and may impact future cases involving the use of similar technology. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: Can D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc. be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What cases are related to D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.?

Precedent cases cited or related to D'Arrigo v. Long Is. Concrete Inc.: United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Q: Does the use of a GPS tracker always require a warrant?

No, the use of a GPS tracker may not always require a warrant, but it depends on the specific circumstances. In this case, the warrantless installation and use of the GPS tracker was found to be unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Q: What does 'reasonable expectation of privacy' mean in the context of the Fourth Amendment?

A 'reasonable expectation of privacy' means that a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a particular area or item, and that society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his vehicle.