From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Guzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Goldstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court should have suppressed physical evidence seized from the defendant's car. Since the police observed the defendant violating traffic regulations, the stop of the defendant's vehicle was valid (see, People v Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393; People v McFadden, 194 A.D.2d 567). After stopping the vehicle, it was not unreasonable for the police officer to approach the defendant's vehicle and to lean inside (see, People v Vasquez, 106 A.D.2d 327, affd 66 N.Y.2d 968, cert denied 475 U.S. 1109) aided with a flashlight (see, People v Spencer, 193 A.D.2d 90; People v Bute, 172 A.D.2d 550). He was justified in seizing a pistol when he observed its butt protruding from under the front seat (see, People v David L., 56 N.Y.2d 698, cert denied 459 U.S. 866; People v Ellis, 169 A.D.2d 838). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Guzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Guzman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EUSEBIO GUZMAN…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 45

Citing Cases

People v. Young

Moreover, the defendant's car did not exhibit any outward indicia that it might be stolen (cf., People v.…

People v. Edwards

Consequently, they did not engage in an illegal search of the vehicle by opening its door ( see, People v…