People v. Rives, Washington

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Edwards

    65 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Overturning conviction for obstruction of governmental administration where initially lawful traffic stop became unconstitutional because of length of detention; "[b]ecause the Deputies' detention of defendant was unlawful by the time of the alleged assault, they were not engaged in the performance of a lawful duty. . . . the . . . count of the indictment[] charging defendant with obstructing governmental administration in the second degree . . . should have been dismissed"

    Thus, his observations were made during the course of the vehicle and traffic investigation, not after that investigation was completed. Of course, as soon as the first Deputy observed the cocaine crumbs on defendant's palm, he had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of a controlled substance ( see generally People v Mizell, 72 NY2d 651, 656; People v Rives, 237 AD2d 312, 313, lv denied 90 NY2d 1013). The majority concludes that defendant was detained after the traffic investigation was completed because the Deputies never intended to issue a traffic ticket when they approached the vehicle on the third occasion, but instead intended to question defendant further based on his excessive nervousness.

  2. People v. Guzman

    23 A.D.3d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    Following a lawful traffic stop, a State Trooper observed a glassine envelope on the floor of the car, which, based on his training and field experience, he believed contained heroin. In addition, the conduct of the defendant and his passenger, coupled with the defendant's inability to produce a registration or a rental agreement, supported the finding of probable cause ( see People v. Yancy, 86 NY2d 239, 245; People v. Rives, 237 AD2d 312, 313; People v. Baldanza, 138 AD2d 722, 724). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the gun, drugs, and drug paraphernalia found in the defendant's car, and the drugs found on his person upon his arrest.

  3. People v. Collado

    304 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    stop for a traffic violation (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341), and that the arrests of the driver and the front seat passenger were proper. The court further determined that it was permissible for the police officers to order the occupants to exit the van (see People v. Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 774, cert denied 493 U.S. 966). These findings are not contested on appeal. However, the hearing court concluded that the warrantless search of the van, after the occupants had been removed from it, was unlawful, because there was no longer any danger to the police officers' safety. The search of the van was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (see People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673). After the police arrested the driver and the front seat passenger, they had probable cause to believe that the van might contain other drugs or weapons (see People v. Blasich, supra; People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, cert denied 465 U.S. 1028; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v. Rives, 237 A.D.2d 312; People v. Suarez, 187 A.D.2d 620). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress the weapon should have been denied. FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and COZIER, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Fasciani

    73 Misc. 3d 1226 (N.Y. City Ct. 2021)

    It is well settled that "[a] crack pipe is a tell-tale sign of narcotics possession" (People v Morgan , 24 Misc 2d 1250 (A) [Sup Ct. Kings Co. 2009] (citing People v Kettles, 62 A.D.3d 902, 879 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2d Dept 2009] ; People v Edwards , 160 A.D.2d 501, 554 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept 1990] ). The officer's observation of the crack pipe and lighter, coupled with an unconscious, drowsy, incoherent driver, provided probable cause to believe the pipe contained crack cocaine and to arrest the defendant ( People v Rives , 237 A.D.2d 312, 654 N.Y.S.2d 797 [2d Dept 1997] (observation of glass pipe on front seat of vehicle provided probable cause for arrest); People v Khan , 182 Misc 2d 83, 697 N.Y.S.2d 457 [2d Dept 1997] (reversing trial court determination and finding that probable cause to arrest existed where defendant, while legally parked with the engine running, found asleep or unconscious, slumped over the steering wheel with head back); People v Edwards , 160 Ad2d 501, 554 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept. 1990] (probable cause to arrest defendant existed upon observation of glass pipe). At the police station, defendant was searched incident to a lawful arrest.

  5. People v. Livigni

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52657 (N.Y. Misc. 2009)

    Applying these principles to the matter before this court, the search conducted of the Defendant's vehicle immediately upon his arrest for Driving While Impaired Due to Drugs was permissible pursuant to the Federal and State Constitutions. The very reasons which lead to the Defendant's arrest for this crime, i.e., the manner in which he operated his motor vehicle, his unsteadiness on his feet, his rapidly fluttering eyelids and the presence of what was described to be a crack pipe on the driver's floor mat, provided Officer Semetsis with a reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contained further evidence of one of the crimes for which the Defendant was arrested. The matter sub judice is not unlike People v. Rives, 237 AD2d 312, 654 NYS2d 797 (2nd Dept. 1997) lv. den. 90 NY2d 1013 (1997), where the court upheld the search of the defendant's vehicle after it was stopped for a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation and a crack pipe was observed on the front seat, or People v. Guzman , 23 AD3d 579, 804 NYS2d 410 (2nd Dept. 2005), where a valid search was conducted after a packet of what was believed to be heroin was seen in plain view following a lawful traffic stop; and, it is quite similar to People v. Sanchez, 178 Misc 2d 695, 681 NYS2d 428 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 1998), where the court sustained the validity of a search of the defendant's vehicle after the observation of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation, followed by a high speed chase, involving numerous other traffic violations, a crash of the defendant's vehicle and the officer's observation of evidence leading him to believe the defendant was driving while intoxicated. Accordingly, that branch of the Defendant's application which seeks to suppress the pills found in the center console of his

  6. People v. O'Hare

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 33805 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2007)

    See, for example, People v. Goldring, 186 A.D.2d 675, 588 NYS2d 639 (2nd Dept, 1992) which held: "Once the crack vial had been detected, the police had the right to conduct a warrantless automobile search based on the existence of probable cause to believe that the automobile contained contraband [see, People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673 (1989).]" See also, People v Rives, 237 AD2d 312, 654 NYS2d 797 (2nd Dept, 1997.) The Court holds that the discovery of the clear plastic bag containing a white powder authorized Officer Sefton to conduct a warrantless search of defendant's vehicle, and of any closed containers within the passenger compartment in the vehicle.

  7. People v. Andeliz

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24060 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)

    This exception was fashioned to allow the police to respond to potentially dangerous situations in the context of the mobility of a motor vehicle ( People v. Major, 267 AD2d 251 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 904) or to search the vehicle when they have probable cause to believe contraband is inside which is related to the nature and scope of an authorized arrest already being effected. ( People v. Ellis, 62 NY2d 393; People v. Langen, 60 NY2d 170; People v. Belton, 55 NY2d 49; People v. Savona, 112 AD2d 328 [2d Dept 1985]; People v. Rives, 237 AD2d 312 [2d Dept 1997]; see also, People v. Galak, 81 NY2d 463; People v. Blasich, 73 NY2d 673.) See and compare People v. Concepcion ( 172 Misc 2d 134 [Sup Ct, Bronx County, 1997]) for a more elaborate discussion of a trap and its role in enhancing the basis for an arrest and search of a motor vehicle.

  8. People v. Andeliz

    3 Misc. 3d 384 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)

    [8] This exception was fashioned to allow the police to respond to potentially dangerous situations in the context of the mobility of a motor vehicle (People v Major, 267 AD2d 251 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 904 [2000])[9] or to search the vehicle when they have probable cause to believe contraband is inside which is related to the nature and scope of an authorized arrest already being effected. (People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393 [1984]; People v Langen, 60 NY2d 170 [1983]; People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49 [1982]; People v Savona, 112 AD2d 328 [2d Dept 1985]; People v Rives, 237 AD2d 312 [2d Dept 1997]; see also, People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463 [1993]; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673 [1989].) Finally, the People have also argued "inevitable discovery," but this exception has never been available for "primary evidence" such as the narcotics seized in this case.

  9. People v. Andeliz

    3 Misc. 3d 384 (N.Y. Misc. 2004)

    This exception was fashioned to allow the police to respond to potentially dangerous situations in the context of the mobility of a motor vehicle ( People v. Major, 267 A.D.2d 251 [2nd Dept 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 904) or to search the vehicle when they have probable cause to believe contraband is inside which is related to the nature and scope of an authorized arrest already being affected. People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393 (1984); People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170 (1983); People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49 (1982); People v. Savona, 112 A.D.2d 328 (2d Dept. 1985); People v. Rives, 237 A.D.2d 312 (2d Dept 1997). See also, People v. Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463 (1993); People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673 (1989).