It is well-settled under New York law that the Automobile Presumption may provide probable cause for the arrest of all occupants of a vehicle. See People v. Ayen, 55 A.D.3d 1305, 864 N.Y.S.2d 591, 593 (N.Y.App.Div. 4th Dept.2008) (finding a “legitimate basis for the arrest pursuant to the [A]utomobile [P]resumption” where the defendant was in another person's vehicle and the police found a gun in the vehicle, despite defendant's contention that the gun belonged to the vehicle's owner); People v. Williams, 17 A.D.3d 1043, 794 N.Y.S.2d 197, 198 (N.Y.App.Div. 4th Dept.2005) (finding probable cause for vehicle occupant's arrest pursuant to the Automobile Presumption where police officers observed a handgun in plain view on a minivan seat); People v. Gordon, 282 A.D.2d 868, 725 N.Y.S.2d 423, 425 (N.Y.App.Div.3d Dept.2001) (affirming denial of motion to suppress because the Automobile Presumption “provided probable cause for defendant's arrest”); People v. Miller, 237 A.D.2d 535, 655 N.Y.S.2d 579, 579 (N.Y.App.Div.2d Dept.1997) (finding that, pursuant to the Automobile Presumption, police officers had probable cause to arrest the occupants of a vehicle upon discovering the butt of a gun sticking out from under the driver's seat). Moreover, the Automobile Presumption “may apply regardless of the length of time an occupant is in a vehicle or whether an occupant knows about the presence of the gun.”
Joseph, who was also seated inside the vehicle, had been observed placing his belongings in the trunk, where a second loaded .380 caliber semi-automatic was recovered. Although Joseph claims that the factual allegations set forth by the District Attorney fail to establish that the defendants constructively possessed the guns, this court finds that under the totality of the circumstances there is a sufficient basis to establish probable cause (Matter of Chaplin v. McGrath, 215 A.D.2d 842 [3d Dept 1995]; Matter of Vivanco v. West, 214 A.D.2d 618 [2d Dept 1995]; Matter of David M. v. Dwyer, 107 A.D.2d 884, 885 [3d Dept 1985]; People v. Forelli, 58 A.D.2d 76 [2d Dept 1977]; see People v. Shabazz, 301 A.D.2d 412 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied100 N.Y.2d 566 [2003],People v. Simpson, 244 A.D.2d 87 [1st Dept 1998], appeal withdrawn92 N.Y.2d 947 [1998],People v. Robinson, 237 A.D.2d 535 [2d Dept 1997], appeal denied90 N.Y.2d 909 [1997];cf. People v. Washington, 33 Misc.3d 640 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2011, Grosso J] [Defendant's actions, including, standing in a crowd, grabbing his waistband, walking briskly into a two-family dwelling and then exiting, were found to be insufficient to justify arresting the defendant for possessing two guns that were subsequently recovered from an open cooler inside the two-family dwelling when a second individual opened the door to the two-family dwelling to allow the police to enter] ).