Summary
In People v Rowe, 189 A.D.3d 894 (2nd Dept 2020), lv den 36 N.Y.3d 1053 (2021), officers observed a traffic infraction (excessively tinted windows) and made a traffic stop.
Summary of this case from People v. StewartOpinion
2020–00184 Ind.No. 121/19
12-02-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jason ROWE, Appellant.
Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), rendered October 21, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of forgery devices (22 counts), unlawful possession of a skimmer device in the second degree, and operating a motor vehicle with excessively tinted windows, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (John F. Zoll, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50.
The defendant was indicted for criminal possession of a forgery device (22 counts), unlawful possession of a skimmer device in the second degree, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, operating a motor vehicle with excessively tinted windows, and operating a vehicle without a license. In his omnibus motion, the defendant moved to suppress physical evidence recovered during a search of his vehicle. At a suppression hearing, the People presented evidence that on the evening of April 26, 2018, a police officer observed the defendant operating a vehicle with excessively tinted windows and stopped the vehicle. The officer requested the defendant's license and registration. Upon learning that the defendant's license was suspended in New York, the officer arrested the defendant. The officer's partner drove the defendant's vehicle back to the precinct. During a subsequent inventory search of the defendant's vehicle, the officers recovered numerous forgery devices.
"On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance. Once the People have met their initial burden, the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving the illegality of the search and seizure" ( People v. Diaz, 146 A.D.3d 803, 804, 46 N.Y.S.3d 627 [citations omitted] ). "A suppression court's credibility findings are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Bookman, 131 A.D.3d 1258, 1260, 16 N.Y.S.3d 848 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The credible evidence at the hearing established that the police officers lawfully stopped the defendant's vehicle due to an apparent violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(12–a)(b)(2) (see People v. Vanderpool, 157 A.D.3d 831, 69 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Bacquie, 154 A.D.3d 648, 649, 62 N.Y.S.3d 425 ; People v. Brock, 107 A.D.3d 1025, 1026–1027, 968 N.Y.S.2d 624 ; People v. Collins, 105 A.D.3d 1378, 1379, 963 N.Y.S.2d 890 ). The officers had the right to request that the defendant produce his license and registration (see People v. Foster, 153 A.D.3d 853, 854, 60 N.Y.S.3d 372 ; People v. Graham, 54 A.D.3d 1056, 1058, 865 N.Y.S.2d 259 ). Upon learning that the defendant had a suspended driver's license, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a] ; People v. Foster, 153 A.D.3d at 853, 60 N.Y.S.3d 372 ; People v. Clayton, 57 A.D.3d 557, 558, 868 N.Y.S.2d 303 ). Finally, the People met their burden of establishing the validity of the inventory search through evidence that the officers properly conducted the search pursuant to established police procedures (see People v. Echevarria, 173 A.D.3d 638, 104 N.Y.S.3d 104 ; People v. Edwards, 163 A.D.3d 712, 714, 79 N.Y.S.3d 293 ; People v. Taylor, 92 A.D.3d 961, 962–963, 940 N.Y.S.2d 103 ).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.