People v. Cabot

• Decision Date: 25 May 1982
• Citation: 450 N.Y.S.2d 489,88 A.D.2d 556
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ramon CABOT, Defendant-Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Miguel CEDENO, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 489

450 N.Y.S.2d 489

88 A.D.2d 556

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ramon CABOT, Defendant-Respondent.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Miguel CEDENO, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

May 25, 1982.

D. H. Fromm, New York City, for appellant.

H. L. Jacobs, E. M. Chikofsky, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, FEIN and MILONAS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on May 8, 1980, which granted the defendants' motions to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed on the law, the motions to suppress denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

At 3:00 A.M. on April 18, 1978, Police Officer Landi and his partner, Sergeant Di Martini, while working as a robbery/burglary enforcement team, parked their unmarked vehicle near the intersection of Boynton and Watson Avenues, an area interspersed with commercial establishments in Bronx County. At this time the officers were observing the activities of two youths, one of whom, the Sergeant knew, had a prior arrest for burglary. They then noticed a car, a 1967 Pontiac convertible, driven by defendant Cabot, make a right turn onto Boynton Avenue. The car was being operated without headlights, taillights or directional signals and as Sergeant Di Martini testified, the car wavered from one side of the street to the other. Defendant Cabot double parked the car adjacent to 1056 Boynton Avenue, which, the officers later discovered, was the residence of defendant Cedeno, the passenger in the vehicle.

The officers watched the Pontiac for approximately two or three minutes and saw no unusual activity. However, an interior light, later described as a "courtesy light", which was hanging from the dashboard, was lit. The officers decided to investigate. They drove their vehicle and parked it behind defendant's car. Officer Landi approached the driver, and had his gun drawn but pointed downward. Both officers also testified that, as they approached the double parked car, they feared for their safety. In any event, when Officer Landi was approximately one foot behind the driver, he knocked on the closed window, identified himself as a police officer and asked defendant Cabot for his license and registration. However, before these documents could be produced, Sergeant Di Martini, who was now standing adjacent to the seated passenger, alerted his partner that there was narcotics on the front seat between the occupants of the car. The officer observed a clear plastic bag containing a white powder, tinfoil packets and glassine envelopes. The defendants were ordered out of the vehicle, they were placed under arrest, the contraband on the front seat was seized and other drug-related items were seized from defendant Cedeno. The items, which were seized and are sought to be suppressed, included a clear plastic bag containing a white powder, which after chemical analysis was determined to be cocaine, a small green container with five tinfoil packets and twelve empty glassine envelopes.

The suppression Court determined that the officers lawfully "stopped" the car on the ground that they had articulable reasons to investigate. The Court also found that since Officer Landi reasonably feared for his safety, he was warranted in approaching this vehicle with gun drawn, but aimed towards the ground. In sum, the Court found that the approach utilized by these officers was reasonable in relation to the evolving situation. The Court next concluded that Sergeant Di Martini was lawfully present at the position from which he observed the contraband. However, the Court then found that, when Sergeant Di Martini viewed the items on the front seat, such did not rise to a level of probable cause to arrest. In reaching this conclusion, the suppression Court rejected the argument that the cumulative effect of observing all of the objects seized furnished probable cause to believe that narcotics were present. We disagree, and find that the evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause.

Both officers testified at the suppression hearing that the area was a high crime area and a known narcotics area. The officers "stopped" the car in which the defendants were traveling when they reasonably suspected violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which violations were open and notorious. The...