Summary
In People v Goggans (155 AD2d 689), the police officer observed the defendant, who was eight feet away, reach into a brown paper bag and remove a clear plastic vial containing a white powdery substance, which appeared to be crack cocaine.
Summary of this case from People v. KettelesOpinion
November 27, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the hearing held in connection with that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence, a police officer testified that on November 10, 1987, he observed the defendant standing next to the passenger side of an automobile which was stopped in the middle of a road. The officer testified that as he approached to within eight feet of the defendant, he observed the defendant reach into a brown paper bag and remove a clear plastic vial which contained a white powder which appeared to be the substance known as "crack", a form of cocaine. After displaying the vial of crack to the occupant of the vehicle, and after observing the approach of the officer, the defendant placed the vial back into the paper bag, and began to walk away, concealing the bag underneath his coat. The officer then identified himself, ordered the defendant to stop, and reached into the defendant's overcoat. This search yielded 11 plastic vials which contained what appeared to be crack, and the defendant was thereupon placed under arrest.
The arresting officer possessed expert knowledge of the customs of drug dealers and the usual appearance and packaging of their product. Based on his previous experience, this officer unquestionably had probable cause to believe that the white substance contained in the clear plastic vial offered by the defendant to a passing motorist was in fact crack or some other narcotic drug. Recognizing the reliability of the judgment exercised by veteran police officers in the context of similar situations, we have frequently held that probable cause to arrest exists when the officer in question personally observes the defendant in possession of either a clear vial or a glassine envelope containing a white powder or substance under circumstances which reveal that the substance in question has been, or is about to be, sold (see, People v Mariner, 147 A.D.2d 659, 660; People v Burke, 146 A.D.2d 706, 707; People v Mann, 143 A.D.2d 200, 201; People v Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473; see also, United States v Rosario, 638 F.2d 460). The clear plastic vial is, like the small glassine envelope, the "hallmark of an illicit drug exchange" (People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 604; see also, People v Alexander, 37 N.Y.2d 202, 203; People v Corrado, 22 N.Y.2d 308, 313; People v Bittner, 97 A.D.2d 33, 37). In order to have probable cause to arrest, it is not necessary for the officer to observe an actual exchange of the vial or glassine envelope for cash (People v Eldridge, 103 A.D.2d 470; People v Greenridge, 131 A.D.2d 303, 304). Nor do we believe that it is always necessary to prove that the defendant was present in a so-called "drug prone" location.
Considering that it is relatively uncommon for the dispensing of legitimate medications to occur through the window of a car stopped in the middle of the street, and considering that the defendant's concealment of the clear plastic vial immediately upon his detection of the arresting officer's presence offers additional evidence of guilt, we conclude that the officer was fully justified in believing that the white substance which he observed in the possession of the defendant was in fact illegal contraband rather than some legitimate substance. There was, in short, probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time that the evidence which was the subject of the defendant's motion to suppress was seized. It is immaterial that the seizure of this evidence occurred immediately before, rather than simultaneously with, the formal arrest (see, People v Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369, 377; People v Evans, 43 N.Y.2d 160, 166).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.