Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1680 (Monroe)
Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1680 (Monroe)
Contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly determined that no inventory search took place and that the evidence was instead lawfully seized based on what the officer observed in plain view and pursuant to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. The officers were permitted to ask defendant to exit the vehicle both as part of the traffic stop (seePeople v. Garcia , 20 N.Y.3d 317, 321, 959 N.Y.S.2d 464, 983 N.E.2d 259 [2012] ; People v. Robinson , 74 N.Y.2d 773, 775, 545 N.Y.S.2d 90, 543 N.E.2d 733 [1989], cert denied 493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 411, 107 L.Ed.2d 376 [1989] ) and because they had probable cause to arrest defendant based on his failure to produce a valid driver's license (seePeople v. Holt , 192 A.D.3d 1680, 1681, 141 N.Y.S.3d 402 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 957, 147 N.Y.S.3d 531, 532, 170 N.E.3d 405, 406 [2021]; see alsoPeople v. Clark , 227 A.D.2d 983, 984, 643 N.Y.S.2d 836 [4th Dept. 1996] ). When defendant exited the vehicle, the officer observed the cocaine in plain view, providing him with both a lawful basis to seize the cocaine and probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception (seePeople v. Simpson , 176 A.D.3d 1113, 1113, 108 N.Y.S.3d 893 [2d Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1162, 120 N.Y.S.3d 243, 142 N.E.3d 1145 [2020] ; cf.People v. Johnson , 183 A.D.3d 1273, 1275, 123 N.Y.S.3d 378 [4th Dept. 2020] ; see generallyPeople v. King , 193 A.D.2d 1075, 1075-1076, 598 N.Y.S.2d 879 [4th Dept. 1993], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 721, 602 N.Y.S.2d 818, 622 N.E.2d 319 [1993] ), which permits officers to " ‘search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there’ " ( People v. Johnson , 159 A.D.3d 1382, 1383, 72 N.Y.S.3d
Contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly determined that no inventory search took place and that the evidence was instead lawfully seized based on what the officer observed in plain view and pursuant to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. The officers were permitted to ask defendant to exit the vehicle both as part of the traffic stop (see People v Garcia, 20 N.Y.3d 317, 321 [2012]; People v Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 775 [1989], cert denied 493 U.S. 966 [1989]) and because they had probable cause to arrest defendant based on his failure to produce a valid driver's license (see People v Holt, 192 A.D.3d 1680, 1681 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 957 [2021]; see also People v Clark, 227 A.D.2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 1996]). When defendant exited the vehicle, the officer observed the cocaine in plain view, providing him with both a lawful basis to seize the cocaine and probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception (see People v Simpson, 176 A.D.3d 1113, 1113 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1162 [2020]; cf. People v Johnson, 183 A.D.3d 1273, 1275 [4th Dept 2020]; see generally People v King, 193 A.D.2d 1075, 1075-1076 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 721 [1993]), which permits officers to" 'search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there'" (People v Johnson, 159 A.D.3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1083 [2018]; see People v Henderson, 57 A.D.3d 562, 564 [2d Dept 2008],
Contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly determined that no inventory search took place and that the evidence was instead lawfully seized based on what the officer observed in plain view and pursuant to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. The officers were permitted to ask defendant to exit the vehicle both as part of the traffic stop (see People v Garcia, 20 N.Y.3d 317, 321 [2012]; People v Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 775 [1989], cert denied 493 U.S. 966 [1989]) and because they had probable cause to arrest defendant based on his failure to produce a valid driver's license (see People v Holt, 192 A.D.3d 1680, 1681 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 957 [2021]; see also People v Clark, 227 A.D.2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 1996]). When defendant exited the vehicle, the officer observed the cocaine in plain view, providing him with both a lawful basis to seize the cocaine and probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception (see People v Simpson, 176 A.D.3d 1113, 1113 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1162 [2020]; cf. People v Johnson, 183 A.D.3d 1273, 1275 [4th Dept 2020]; see generally People v King, 193 A.D.2d 1075, 1075-1076 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 721 [1993]), which permits officers to" 'search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there'" (People v Johnson, 159 A.D.3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1083 [2018]; see People v Henderson, 57 A.D.3d 562, 564 [2d Dept 2008],