Opinion
2016–06044 Ind. No. 15–00071
12-13-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. David SINGLETARY, appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered May 4, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. A vehicle may be searched without a warrant pursuant to the "automobile exception" if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe that the vehicle "contains contraband, evidence of [a] crime, a weapon or some means of escape" ( People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 678, 543 N.Y.S.2d 40, 541 N.E.2d 40 ; see People v. Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463, 467, 600 N.Y.S.2d 185, 616 N.E.2d 842 ). Here, the officers had probable cause to search the defendant's vehicle without a warrant because, upon making a valid traffic stop (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163[d] ), the officers smelled what they identified, with the aid of experience and training, as a strong odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle (see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 ; People v. Chestnut, 36 N.Y.2d 971, 973, 373 N.Y.S.2d 564, 335 N.E.2d 865 ; People v. McCaw, 137 A.D.3d 813, 815, 27 N.Y.S.3d 574 ; People v. Hurtado, 113 A.D.3d 411, 977 N.Y.S.2d 639 ; People v. Hughes, 68 A.D.3d 894, 895, 890 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; People v. Parris, 26 A.D.3d 393, 394, 809 N.Y.S.2d 176 ).The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.