After a Bronx County Supreme Court judge determined that a loaded gun found in Terrence McFarlane's car couldn't be introduced into evidence at his criminal trial, the District Attorney's office appealed.
Although Terrence had invited the officer to "take a look," the Appellate Division, First Department, didn't think that meant the cop could take the keys from the vehicle's ignition and unlock the glove department, where the gun was situated.
Since a "reasonable person" would have expected the officer to ask for the key, or to ask Terrence to open the compartment, and the officer did neither, the AD1 concluded that Terrence didn't agree to the search and, as a consequence, the gun couldn't be used as evidence against him. (Had the officer asked whether he could "look through" the car, and had Terrence then agreed, then the appellate court suggested that this story might have had a different ending.)
Could they have compartmentalized that any further?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. McFarlane