People v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 17 December 1987
• Citation: 524 N.Y.S.2d 378,519 N.E.2d 289,70 N.Y.2d 891
• Parties: , 519 N.E.2d 289 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry Burton BENNETT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 378

524 N.Y.S.2d 378

70 N.Y.2d 891, 519 N.E.2d 289

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry Burton BENNETT, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 17, 1987.

Franklin B. Resseguie, Binghamton, for appellant

Robert J. Simpson, Dist. Atty. (Judith A. Melville, Owego, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 121 A.D.2d 113, 510 N.Y.S.2d 209, should be affirmed.

On April 19, 1985, at 1:00 A.M. State Trooper Donald Faughnan and his partner, Ronald Bell, received a radio communication, directing them to investigate a one-car property damage accident, possibly involving an intoxicated driver, at the intersection of two State highways in the Town of Newark Valley, Tioga County. The officers observed two cars stopped about 100 yards from the intersection--one parked on the shoulder of the highway, the second, defendant's vehicle, parked perpendicular to the first in the driveway of a closed farm implements store. The officer saw defendant standing outside of his vehicle, conversing through the other vehicle's passenger side window with the driver of that vehicle. When the officers pulled their clearly marked police car behind the vehicle parked on the shoulder and approached on foot, defendant returned to his vehicle and sat in the driver's seat, while the other vehicle drove away. Trooper Bell then returned to the police vehicle and pulled it up in front of the driveway.

Trooper Faughnan approached defendant's vehicle and inspected the outside by flashlight to determine if there were any signs of damage, which could have indicated that defendant was involved in an accident. He then asked defendant if he had been involved in an accident and defendant replied that he had not. At this point, Trooper Faughnan asked defendant for a license and registration. Defendant replied that he had no license and that the car was not registered in his name. Faughnan observed a roll of clear, one-inch-size plastic bags with zip-lock tops in plain view on the dashboard of defendant's vehicle, and asked defendant what they were for. Defendant replied that he was a coin collector and that the baggies were used for holding the coins.

Trooper Faughnan knew from police schooling and experience that bags of the type found in defendant's vehicle were often used to store drugs and asked defendant to exit the vehicle. Trooper Faughnan also observed a black pouch on the dashboard of defendant's vehicle and twice asked defendant what was in the pouch. Defendant reached into the vehicle, pulled out the pouch, opened it and pulled out a small bag containing a white powdery residue. When asked if the bag contained speed or cocaine, defendant answered that it was speed. Defendant was placed under arrest. A subsequent search of defendant's vest and vehicle revealed more illegal drugs.

In affirming defendant's conviction, the Appellate Division rejected defendant's argument that the physical evidence should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search and seizure (NY Const., art. I, § 12; U.S. Const. 4th, 14th Amends.). The court also rejected defendant's argument that probable cause for his subsequent arrest was obtained through custodial interrogation, prior to the giving of Miranda warnings, and, therefore, all physical evidence obtained as an incident of that arrest had to be suppressed. On the issue of interrogation, the Appellate Division made no express finding as to whether defendant was in custody at the time of the questioning, holding that even if defendant were in custody the questioning was permissible pursuant to ...