From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cochran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 2005
22 A.D.3d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-03032.

October 17, 2005.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered April 7, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Gary Greenwald, Chester, N.Y. (Nadine N. Parkes of counsel), for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Daniel M. Reback of counsel), for respondent.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Following the concededly lawful stop of the vehicle by a State Trooper and the defendant's arrest for driving with a suspended license, State Troopers properly impounded the vehicle, as there was no other licensed driver present who could take possession of the car ( see People v. Figueroa, 6 AD3d 720, 722). Moreover, the police were under no obligation to offer the defendant an opportunity to make other provision for the care of the vehicle ( see Colorado v. Bertine, 479 US 367, 373-374). The evidence at the suppression hearing was sufficient to establish that the motivation of the State Troopers in conducting the subsequent search was caretaking rather than criminal investigation ( cf. People v. Acevedo-Sanchez, 212 AD2d 1023), and that they were acting pursuant to State Police regulations ( see People v. Galak, 80 NY2d 715). Indeed, while still at the scene, the State Troopers filled out a meaningful inventory list, "the hallmark of an inventory search" ( People v. Johnson, 1 NY3d 252, 256).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Cochran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 2005
22 A.D.3d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Cochran

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOE COCHRAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 17, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7698
804 N.Y.S.2d 346

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

While this procedure need not be offered into evidence, a description of what the procedure requires must be…

People v. Ewart

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to suppress physical…