People v. Burgess
| Decision Date | 31 December 1990 |
| Citation | 168 A.D.2d 685,564 N.Y.S.2d 183 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bruce BURGESS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irving Cohen, New York City, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Thomas T. Keating, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, EIBER, HARWOOD and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered January 24, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor, 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.
A police officer found the defendant intoxicated and asleep in his car which was parked on the shoulder of a highway with its headlights on and engine running and, by use of a flashlight, observed an open paper bag containing marihuana on the floor of the vehicle. On appeal, the defendant challenges the hearing court's denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the marihuana arguing (1) that the officer's use of the flashlight to search the interior of the car violated his Fourth Amendment rights and (2) that the police testimony was patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections.
Neither of these arguments was advanced before the hearing court and therefore they are not preserved for this court's review (see, People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920; People v. Francois, 155 A.D.2d 685, 548 N.Y.S.2d 256). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the officer's use of a flashlight was not an unreasonable intrusion inasmuch as the marihuana was in the plain view of the officer, but for the dark (see, People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39, amended 35 N.Y.2d 708, 361 N.Y.S.2d 641, 320 N.E.2d 274; People v. Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 59, 549 N.Y.S.2d 515; People v. Baldanza, 138 A.D.2d 722, 526 N.Y.S.2d 535). Furthermore, we find no basis in the record for disturbing the hearing court's determination that the police testimony was credible.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spann
...door, was not incredible as a matter of law ( see People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 617, 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483; People v. Burgess, 168 A.D.2d 685, 686, 564 N.Y.S.2d 183; People v. Kalish, 166 A.D.2d 610, 611, 561 N.Y.S.2d 54; People v. Burke, 146 A.D.2d 706, 706-707, 537 N.Y.S.2d 60). Moreover, th......
-
People v. Reifler
...an illegal search is not before us because that argument was not advanced before the suppression court (see, People v. Burgess, 168 A.D.2d 685, 686, 564 N.Y.S.2d 183). In any event, it lacks merit. It is well settled that "the officers' use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of the ......
-
People v. Davis
...had adequate reason to approach the vehicle to investigate (see, People v. Evans, 175 A.D.2d 456, 572 N.Y.S.2d 508; People v. Burgess, 168 A.D.2d 685, 564 N.Y.S.2d 183). The use of a flashlight by one of the officers to look into the car was not improper (see, People v. Burgess, supra ). On......
-
People v. Frazier
...they are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920; People v. Burgess, 168 A.D.2d 685, 564 N.Y.S.2d 183). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the State Troopers' uncontroverted testimony that they observed him ......