You are here: / SEARCH OF VEHICLE

Tag Archive for: SEARCH OF VEHICLE

,

Ornaments Hanging from Rear-View Mirror Justified Vehicle Stop

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the police officer had probable/reasonable cause to believe defendant had committed a traffic infraction.  Therefore, the vehicle stop and the subsequent search of the vehicle (which turned up a weapon) were proper. There was an ornamental sandal and necklace hanging from the rear-view mirror. The court held the officer had reasonable cause to believe the sandal and necklace obstructed the driver’s view in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 375 (30):

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 12, of the New York State Constitution, a police officer may stop a vehicle when the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle has committed a traffic infraction … . In this case, the credible evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the police had probable cause to stop the Altima. The officer who stopped the Altima testified that when he stopped his patrol car behind the Altima, he saw an ornamental sandal on a string and a necklace hanging from the Altima’s rearview mirror. The officer further testified that the sandal was four to five inches long and “[p]ossibly about [two] inches in width,” and that it was hanging about four to five inches beneath the rearview mirror. Contrary to the defendant’s contention and to our colleague’s dissent, this testimony demonstrated that the officer had reasonable cause to believe that the sandal was hung “in such a manner as to obstruct or interfere with the view of the operator through the windshield” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375[30]…). Accordingly, the officer’s stop of the Altima was not improper .. . Probable cause does not require certainty, and the officer’s testimony about the size and location of the ornaments was sufficient to establish probable cause. People v Bookman, 2015 NY Slip Op 07037, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

,

Odor of Marihuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant’s Car and Person

The Second Department determined the odor of marihuana coming from inside defendant’s car provided the police with probable cause to search defendant’s car and person:

… [T]he police had probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle and his person. An officer testified at the suppression hearing that he detected the odor of marihuana emanating from inside the vehicle through the open front windows. He further testified that he had been trained in the detection of marihuana and had made hundreds of drug arrests. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause” to search a vehicle and its occupants.. . People v McLaren, 2015 NY Slip Op 06522, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

,

Multiplicitous Indictment Counts Dismissed/Warrantless Search of Impounded Vehicle Upheld

The Third Department determined several counts of an indictment stemming from a fatal car accident (involving reckless driving under the influence) were multiplicitous and further determined the warrantless search of the impounded vehicle was valid:

An indictment “is multiplicitous when a single offense is charged in more than one count” (People v Alonzo, 16 NY3d 267, 269 [2011]). Accordingly, “[a]n indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . “Where each count requires proof of an element not essential to the other, [however,] an indictment is not multiplicitous” … .

Counts 2, 5 and 8 of the indictment charged defendant with vehicular manslaughter in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.13 (3), which requires proof that defendant (1) committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and (2) had been convicted within the preceding 10 years of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (see Penal Law § 125.13 [3]). Counts 1, 4 and 7 of the indictment charged defendant with aggravated vehicular homicide pursuant to Penal Law § 125.14 (3), which requires proof that defendant (1) committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, (2) engaged in reckless driving and (3) had previously been convicted of a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 violation within the preceding 10 years. As relevant here, a person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree when he or she operates a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), (3) or (4-a) thereby causing the death of another person (see Penal Law § 125.12 [1]).

In our view, these charges were predicated upon the same statutory provisions (see Penal Law §§ 125.13 [3]; 125.14 [3]), act and victim, differing only in the nature of defendant’s impairment. In this regard, defendant was alleged to have been driving while per se intoxicated (counts 1 and 2), in an intoxicated condition (counts 4 and 5) and impaired by a combination of drugs or alcohol and drugs (counts 7 and 8) (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2], [3], [4-a]). The essential elements of both crimes do not address the specific manner in which defendant was impaired; rather, they include only a single offense of some form of impaired driving as defined within Penal Law § 125.12 (1). Accordingly, counts 4 and 7 should have been dismissed as multiplicitous of count 1, and counts 5 and 8 must be dismissed as multiplicitous of count 2 … . * * *

Testimony at the suppression hearing established that, at the request of law enforcement, defendant’s vehicle was removed from the accident scene and taken to an unsecured lot, where it remained for several hours until it was transported — at the direction of a Rensselaer County deputy sheriff — to a secure impound lot. While defendant does not contest the initial towing from the accident scene, he claims that the seizure of the vehicle from the unsecured lot to the secured lot was unconstitutional. We disagree. “It is well settled that once the police possess a reasonable belief that the vehicle was, in some way, associated with the crime and that a search of the vehicle would produce the fruits, instrumentalities, contraband or evidence of the crime the police can conduct[] a warrantless search and seizure of the vehicle” … . Here, the vehicle was moved from a lot where it was easily accessible to any member of the public to the secure lot only after it became clear that it was involved in a fatal accident. People v Hoffman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05976, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Warrantless Search of Parolee’s Car by Detective Was Valid–Detective Was Effectively Functioning As a Parole Officer, Was Aware of an Arrest Warrant Based Upon Defendant’s Alleged Parole Violations, and Was Aware the Defendant, as a Parolee, Had Consented In Writing to the Search of His Person and Property

The Second Department determined the warrantless search of a parolee’s car by a detective who was exercising parole-warrant responsibilities was valid. The detective was aware of defendant’s parole violations and the related warrant for defendant’s arrest. The detective was also aware that defendant, as a parolee, had consented in writing the search of his person and property:

While a person on parole is not denied the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the status of a parolee is always relevant and may be critical in evaluating the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure. A search which would be unlawful if directed against an ordinary citizen may be proper if conducted against a parolee … . The special circumstances and close supervision that come with being a parolee must be considered when determining if a search is reasonable … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the detective’s search of the car was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty” by dint of the detective’s parole responsibilities as a member of the Joint Apprehension Warrant Squad … . Here, no relevant distinction exists between the detective and the defendant’s parole officer … . At the time of the search, the detective was aware that the defendant had violated the terms of his parole, that as a result a warrant had been issued for the defendant’s arrest …, and that the defendant had consented in writing to a search of his person and property. Additionally, the detective was aware that the car was registered to the defendant, the defendant had acknowledged that the car was his, and a known source had said that she had been told that the defendant had just been in the car with a gun … . People v McMillan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05702, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

Court’s Erroneous Ruling that Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Contest a Search Was Followed by Defendant’s Entering a Guilty Plea—Because Defendant May Not Have Pled Guilty Had the Suppression Motion Been Held and Suppression Granted, the Matter Was Remitted for a Suppression Hearing (After Defendant Had Completed His Sentence)

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erroneously ruled defendant did not have standing to contest a search.  After that ruling the defendant pled guilty and has since completed his sentence. Because the suppression hearing should have been held, and because the defendant may not have pled guilty had suppression been granted, the matter was remitted for a suppression hearing.  People v Kendrick, 2015 NY Slip Op 03979, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Statutory Presumption of Possession of Weapons Recovered from Vehicle Confers on Vehicle-Occupants Automatic Standing to Move to Suppress

The First Department determined the People were relying exclusively on the statutory presumption that weapons recovered from inside a vehicle are possessed by all the occupants.  Therefore, the defendant had standing to move to suppress the weapons:

In opposition to defendant’s assertion that the weapon possession charges were based solely on the statutory presumption that weapons recovered from the interior of an automobile are deemed to be possessed by all its occupants (Penal Law § 265.15[3]), the People failed to “point to evidence reasonably tending to show the defendant’s actual or constructive possession” of the two pistols … . Instead, the People asserted that the statutory presumption did not apply, claiming erroneously that the two handguns at issue were recovered from the person of one of the car’s passengers (see Penal Law § 265.15[3][a]). The People concede on appeal that this argument was incorrect, because the two pistols (unlike a revolver found on the person of a passenger) were in fact recovered from a box on the back seat. There is no indication that the motion court relied either on the grand jury minutes or the search warrant affidavit. Because the People failed to adequately demonstrate that the charges relating to the two pistols were not based entirely on the statutory presumption, defendant had automatic standing to challenge seizure of those weapons … . People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 03396, 1st Dept 4-23-15

 

,

Nervous and Uncooperative Actions by Defendant Justified Search of Area Inside Defendant’s Car After Defendant Was Out of the Car and Had Been Frisked

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the nervous and uncooperative actions of the defendant justified the warrantless search of a bag inside the car defendant was driving, after defendant was outside the car and had been frisked:

The testimony supports the trial court’s finding that the facts available to the officers, including defendant’s furtive behavior, suspicious actions in looking into the back seat on multiple occasions and refusal to follow the officers’ legitimate directions, went beyond mere nervousness. Rather, defendant’s actions both inside and outside of the vehicle created a “perceptible risk” and supported a reasonable conclusion that a weapon that posed an actual and specific danger to their safety was secreted in the area behind the front passenger seat, which justified the limited search of that area, even after defendant had been removed from the car and frisked … . People v Hardee, 2015 NY Slip Op 02573, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

, ,

Defendant’s Attorney Not Ineffective for Failing to Make a Motion to Suppress—Nature of a Motion Which, If Not Made, Would Constitute Ineffective Assistance Addressed by the Majority and the Dissent

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant’s attorney was not ineffective for failure to move to suppress a few of the items of stolen property seized after a traffic stop.  The majority and the dissent disagreed about whether the appeal questioned the validity of the traffic stop or the arrest after the stop.  The dissent felt that a motion to suppress all of the evidence based upon the arguable invalidity of the vehicle stop should have been made. The majority felt that the validity of the stop had not been questioned on appeal. The majority noted that, because the defendant testified, even if the evidence had been suppressed, the defendant could have been impeached with the suppressed evidence. The most useful discussion in the decision concerns the general nature of a motion which, if not made, would constitute ineffective assistance:

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the threshold standard to be applied in determining whether an attorney was ineffective for failing to file a particular motion is “whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success.” It is true, as the dissent points out, that the Court of Appeals has repeatedly stated that “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” … . By so stating, however, the Court was not articulating the standard for what does constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, the Court was explaining what does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. As noted, the Court has made clear in other cases that the standard to be applied is whether defense counsel failed to file a “colorable” motion and, if so, whether counsel had a strategic or legitimate reason for failing to do so … . Although neither the Court of Appeals nor the Appellate Division has defined “colorable” in this context, the term is elsewhere defined as “appearing to be true, valid, or right” (Black’s Law Dictionary 301 [9th ed 2009]). Federal courts have described a colorable claim as one that has ” a fair probability or a likelihood, but not a certitude, of success on the merits’ ” … . Here, for the reasons previously stated, we do not believe that a motion to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful arrest would likely have been granted. People v Carver, 2015 NY Slip Op 00046, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid/The Way Defendant Was Holding a Cigarette Justified the Vehicle Stop/No Probable Cause for Warrantless Search of Trunk of Defendant’s Car

The First Department determined (1) the waiver of appeal, which included a signed written waiver, was not valid; (2) the stop of defendant’s vehicle, the removal of the occupants, and the search of the interior of the car was justified by the police officer’s belief defendant was smoking a marijuana cigarette held between his thumb and index finger and the observation of an empty glassine envelope; and (3) the warrantless search of the trunk where ecstasy was found was not justified by probable cause:

A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective unless it is apparent from the record that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily … . For a waiver to be effective, the record must demonstrate that the defendant has a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver …, including an understanding “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty … .

Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the waiver was invalid and unenforceable … . The written waiver signed by defendant was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . In addition, the court’s statement that defendant was “going to be required” to waive his right to appeal could have misled him into believing that he had no choice but to do so … . * * *

…Officer Rivera, an experienced policeman who had participated in approximately 30 arrests involving marijuana, testified to the court’s satisfaction that, in his opinion and experience, the manner in which defendant was handling the cigarette indicated that it was a marijuana cigarette. “[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” … . That Rivera was not “certain” that defendant was smoking marijuana is of no moment, since “[t]he standard for [a forcible stop is] merely reasonable suspicion, not absolute certainty or even probable cause” … .

Defendant effectively concedes that the police were entitled to search in the area of the car where Officer Rivera claims to have smelled marijuana, but not anywhere else, and certainly not in the trunk. This, he argues, is because any grounds the police may have had to believe that the trunk contained drugs were belied by the lack of evidence that they existed anywhere else in the car.

Indeed, there was scant evidence of drugs in the car. After approaching the car, Rivera never saw the marijuana cigarette that he claimed he saw when he drove past defendant’s car, and he was equivocal about whether he smelled burning or unburnt marijuana. Further, the glassine envelope that Officer Ali uncovered was empty, and it was not until later that day, after defendant and his companions were arrested, that Rivera concluded that it contained marijuana. Rivera also conceded that defendant did not appear to be under the influence.  * * * Accordingly, we find that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk, and that the Ecstasy found there should have been suppressed.  People v Ramos, 2014 NY Slip Op 07931, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle Proper

In upholding the validity of an inventory search of defendant’s vehicle, the Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria:

It is well settled that, “[w]hen the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith’ ” … . Thus, “[h]aving arrested the defendant [in] a public [parking lot], the officers were thereafter entitled to impound the vehicle” … . Furthermore, “[i]t is settled law that the police may search an impounded vehicle to inventory its contents” … . “Such searches, conducted as routine procedures, are permitted to protect an owner’s property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police against false claims for missing property and to protect the police from potential danger” … . Here, the police officers properly impounded the vehicle that defendant drove to the scene of the crime and performed an inventory search of that vehicle pursuant to a reasonable Cheektowaga Police Department procedure, during which they discovered the handgun. Consequently, the court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized during that inventory search. People v Tardi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07880, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy