From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 20, 1989
156 A.D.2d 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 20, 1989

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The initial police conduct in approaching defendant's parked vehicle did not cause the detention of defendant. He was not an occupant of the vehicle and was not present at the scene. Thus his freedom of movement was not interrupted by the initial police action.

In any event, the evidence produced at the suppression hearing demonstrates that the police had an objective credible reason to approach the parked vehicle to make inquiries of the occupant (see, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). Before defendant arrived on the scene, the police had reason to believe that there were "switched" plates on the vehicle. After defendant approached the police, he could not produce either an operator's license or proof of insurance, and he admitted that the vehicle was unregistered and uninsured. Radio inquiry revealed that there were outstanding warrants for his arrest. Defendant was lawfully searched incident to his arrest on those warrants (see, People v Erwin, 42 N.Y.2d 1064). Thus his suppression motion was properly denied.


Summaries of

People v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 20, 1989
156 A.D.2d 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Alexander

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS ALEXANDER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 20, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
549 N.Y.S.2d 543

Citing Cases

People v. Winslow

From our review of the testimony at the suppression hearing, we conclude that there is support in the record…

People v. Manganaro

No less should be required when an officer intrudes upon the privacy of a driver by peering into his or her…