Opinion
570758/16
10-24-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles CALIZAIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered October 13, 2016, affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v. Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977] ). The police had, at least, an objective credible reason to approach defendant's stationary vehicle and ask for basic identification information, since the vehicle was double-parked, which constituted a traffic infraction (see People v. Omowale , 83 AD3d 614, 618 [2011], affd 18 NY3d 825 [2011] ; People v. Citron , 255 AD2d 452 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1030 [1998] ) and had a piece of cardboard with handwritten numbers and letters instead of a rear license plate, an apparent violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402(1)(a) (see People v. Ocasio , 85 NY2d 982, 984 [1995] ; People v. Thomas , 19 AD3d 32, 36-37 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005] ). As one of the officers questioned defendant, he observed a switchblade knife, in plain view, in the center console between the front seats of the car. This observation gave the officer the authority to seize the knife (see People v. Brown , 96 NY2d 80, 88-89 [2001] ; People v. Vanderpool , 157 AD3d 831 [2018] ; People v. McKane , 267 AD2d 253 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 922 [2000] ) and provided probable cause to arrest defendant (see People v. Smith , 125 AD3d 897, 898 [2015], cert denied 25 NY3d 1077 [2015] ).
The court also properly denied suppression of defendant's statement that he had the knife for "protection." The statement did not require Miranda warnings because defendant was not in custody (see People v. Archer , 137 AD3d 449 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1128 [2016] ; People v. Brown , 92 AD3d 455 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 955 [2012] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.