People v. Blanco
| Decision Date | 17 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-11487.,2009-10167 |
| Citation | 67 A.D.3d 923,889 N.Y.S.2d 93,2009 NY Slip Op 08631 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. EDUARDO BLANCO and ARMANDO REYES, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the orders dated November 18, 2008 are reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon reargument, the orders dated September 17, 2008 are vacated, and those branches of the defendants' separate omnibus motions which were to suppress physical evidence and certain statements to law enforcement officials are denied.
We agree with the People's contention that, upon reargument, those branches of the defendants' separate omnibus motions which were to suppress physical evidence and certain statements to law enforcement officials should have been denied. It is undisputed that the troopers lawfully stopped the vehicle driven by the defendant Armando Reyes, and occupied by the defendant Eduardo Blanco. The vehicle was observed traveling at a speed of 40 miles per hour in a 60 mile-per-hour zone, and repeatedly crossing the fog line with both right tires (see People v Parris, 26 AD3d 393, 394 [2006]).
In addition, the troopers could lawfully require both defendants to exit the vehicle (see People v Robinson, 74 NY2d 773, 774 [1989], cert denied 493 US 966 [1989]). The troopers' subsequent request for consent to search the vehicle constituted a common-law inquiry, that had to be supported by a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot (see People v Battaglia, 86 NY2d 755, 758 [1995]; People v Williams, 300 AD2d 684, 685 [2002]; see generally People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181 [1992]; People v Torres, 74 NY2d 224 [1989]).
Under the circumstances presented, that standard was met. As Trooper Cirigliano and his partner approached the vehicle, in the vicinity of Chester, in Orange County, the time was approximately 4:15 A.M. Blanco was observed reaching toward the floor of the car in the area of the passenger seat for several seconds prior to returning to the upright position, and Trooper Cirigliano was concerned that there might be a weapon in that area. Trooper Cirigliano asked Reyes why he was traveling at 40 miles per hour in a 60 mile-per-hour zone. Reyes explained that he was having transmission trouble. When asked why he crossed the fog line, Reyes had no response. Reyes also explained that he had left work in Brooklyn at 1:00 A.M., and was traveling home. He did not know why his passenger was reaching toward the floor of the vehicle. Trooper Cirigliano then spoke with Blanco. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nelson, 106724
...suspicion that criminality was afoot justifying the trooper's request for consent to search the vehicle (see People v. Blanco , 67 A.D.3d 923, 924, 889 N.Y.S.2d 93 [2009] ; People v. Boyea , 44 A.D.3d 1093, 1094–1095, 844 N.Y.S.2d 156 [2007] ; People v. Williams , 300 A.D.2d 684, 684–685, 7......
-
People v. Grant
...74 N.Y.2d 773, 774, 545 N.Y.S.2d 90, 543 N.E.2d 733, cert. denied 493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 411, 107 L.Ed.2d 376; People v. Blanco, 67 A.D.3d 923, 889 N.Y.S.2d 93; People v. Willis, 66 A.D.3d 926, 887 N.Y.S.2d 634). Further, given the defendant's furtive behavior while still seated in the veh......
-
People v. McLean
...his rear- and side-view mirrors rather than watching the road ahead ( seeVehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1181, 1212; People v. Blanco, 67 A.D.3d 923, 889 N.Y.S.2d 93 [2009];compare People v. Davis, 58 A.D.3d 896, 898, 870 N.Y.S.2d 602 [2009] ). These traffic infractions gave the agent probable c......
-
People v. Wright-Hale
...A.D.2d 684, 684, 752 N.Y.S.2d 709 ; see People v. Battaglia, 86 N.Y.2d 755, 756, 631 N.Y.S.2d 128, 655 N.E.2d 169 ; People v. Blanco, 67 A.D.3d 923, 923–924, 889 N.Y.S.2d 93 ). Furthermore, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the defendant voluntarily consente......