Opinion
9769 Ind. 653/16
06-27-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro ECHEVARRIA, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David M. Cohn of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David M. Cohn of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered June 16, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
After suppressing a metal rod recovered from defendant's backpack in an initial search near the crime scene, the hearing court properly declined to suppress the remaining evidence removed from the backpack after an inventory search at the police precinct. The evidence established that the initial illegality did not taint the inventory. The observations of the main police witness were sufficient to satisfy the People's burden at the hearing, and the circumstances did not require them to call the officer who conducted the initial search (see People v. Norman, 304 A.D.2d 405, 405, 757 N.Y.S.2d 294 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 623, 767 N.Y.S.2d 406, 799 N.E.2d 629 [2003] ).
The court also correctly found that the inventory search, in which all the items found in defendant's backpack and the backpack itself were vouchered, was proper (see e.g. People v. Lee, 143 A.D.3d 626, 40 N.Y.S.3d 80 [1st Dept. 2016], affd 29 N.Y.3d 1119, 61 N.Y.S.3d 522, 83 N.E.3d 852 [2017] ; People v. Pompey, 63 A.D.3d 612, 882 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 861, 891 N.Y.S.2d 696, 920 N.E.2d 101 [2009], cert denied 559 U.S. 1051, 130 S.Ct. 2347, 176 L.Ed.2d 566 [2010] ). Unlike the situation in People v. Galak , 80 N.Y.2d 715, 720–721, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362 (1993), a delay in completing the inventory procedure was satisfactorily explained. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments on this subject.