People v. Dozier
| Citation | 276 N.Y.S.2d 145,52 Misc.2d 631 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Louis DOZIER, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1967 |
| Court | New York County Court |
Arthur A. Darrigrand, Dist. Atty. (J. Stuart Fero, Boonville, of counsel), for the People.
Herbert Brill, Utica, for defendant.
The defendant was arrested on the New York State Thruway within this county.
A state trooper assigned to the Thruway patrol in an unmarked car observed the defendant operating an automobile in the early morning hours.
It is conceded that there was no apparent violation of law by the defendant in the operation of his automobile nor was there any reasonable suspicion that the automobile contained any contraband or had been used for any criminal purpose.
The trooper decided to make a 'routine' check of the driver, as apparently it is or was his policy to do so during the late night and early morning hours on the Thruway, a relatively high speed highway in this state connecting with interstate roads.
He stopped the defendant and asked for his operator's license. A companion sitting in the front seat, opened the glove compartment to remove the license and the officer clearly observed a pistol therein. The glove compartment was then closed.
An examination of the license disclosed discrepancies between the defendant and the person to whom the license was issued. After some questioning, the defendant was forthwith arrested by the trooper for driving without a license, a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence. There is no question about the validity of the arrest at that time.
Upon the arrest, the officer demanded that the glove compartment be reopened and the revolver was seized.
The defendant was then questioned as to his possession of the firearm and whether or not he was licensed. He then made certain oral statements that he had found the gun earlier in a service area on the Thruway.
Defendant moves to suppress the evidence seized and for an order holding any statements or oral admissions by the defendant to be inadmissible upon the trial.
The foregoing events are not controverted and are the findings of fact made by this Court beyond a reasonable doubt on this motion to suppress.
The motion for an order holding any statements or oral admissions to be inadmissible on the trial is granted. Concededly, the defendant was in 'custody' at the time he made the statement having been arrested for the traffic offense. Although the officer testified that he warned the defendant of his rights, he conceded that the complete four-fold warning now required by Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 was not given, specifically as to counsel for an indigent person.
The rule is well established that seeing what is in plain sight does not constitute a search. A search implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed.
People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 219--220, 300 P.2d 729, 733; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202.
In the last cited case, the Supreme Court held that where contraband was seen openly, it is not rendered inadmissible by reason of a subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ingle
...o'clock in the morning termed 'suspicious'); but cf. People v. Baer, 37 A.D.2d 150, 152, 322 N.Y.S.2d 534, 536 and People v. Dozier, 52 Misc.2d 631, 632, 276 N.Y.S.2d 145, 147 (involving stops arguably treatable as not arbitrary but assuming that a traffic stop needs no basis whatsoever); s......
-
People v. Williams
...have a statutory duty under Section 423 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to investigate violations of that law. People v. Dozier, 52 Misc.2d 631, 276 N.Y.S.2d 145 (1967). The police likewise have a statutory right under Section 401(4) of the same law to require a non- driver to produce his li......
-
Finn's Liquor Shop, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority
...in some form of judicial proceeding. It 'implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed' (People v. Dozier, 52 Misc.2d 631, 633, 276 N.Y.S.2d 145, 147; cf. United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,......