People v. Edwards
| Citation | 222 A.D.2d 603,635 N.Y.S.2d 274 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kevin EDWARDS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 18 December 1995 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael Fred Baum, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Monique Ferrell, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, SULLIVAN and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), rendered July 18, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grajales, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On November 22, 1993, at about 10:10 P.M., the defendant was one of two passengers traveling on Eastern Parkway in a livery vehicle that was stopped by Police Officers Maverick Sciarrino and Steven Ventura because the vehicle's windows had "pitch black tinting". While Officer Ventura was speaking with the driver of the vehicle, Officer Sciarrino attempted to observe the activities of the two passengers in the rear of the vehicle. However, Officer Sciarrino's view was obstructed and he could only see the driver of the car repeatedly glancing toward two male passengers who appeared to be moving about. Acting out of concern for the risk posed to himself and his partner, Officer Sciarrino opened the rear door of the vehicle and shined his flashlight on the two males in the back seat. Officer Sciarrino saw that the defendant was carrying a gun in the inner pocket of his open jacket. The defendant was placed under arrest and the gun was determined to be a loaded .44 caliber magnum revolver.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the hearing court should have suppressed the physical evidence recovered from the defendant's possession. Since the police reasonably believed that the tinted windows of the vehicle constituted a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, their stop of the vehicle was lawful (see, People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 414-415, 420, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39; People v. Osborne, 158 A.D.2d 740, 741-742, 551 N.Y.S.2d 336; People v. Daguilar, 158 A.D.2d 857, 858, 551 N.Y.S.2d 650). After stopping the vehicle, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the tinted windows,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Watson
...of Jashaun A., 122 A.D.3d 833, 833–834, 996 N.Y.S.2d 357 ; People v. Hill, 72 A.D.3d 702, 705, 898 N.Y.S.2d 553 ; People v. Edwards, 222 A.D.2d 603, 604, 635 N.Y.S.2d 274 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing testimony of the police officers was not manifestly incredible or......
-
People v. Creary
...defendants' expectations of privacy and therefore justified under the necessity of securing the officer's safety (id.). Further relying on Edwards, the People note that here, Edwards, Sgt Collins' conduct was reasonable due to the safety concern presented by the vehicle's tinted windows and......
-
U.S. v. Garcia
... ... 171 F.3d at 723 (noting that, in course of legal stop, the officer "took [defendant's] car keys [and] opened the passenger-side front door"); People v ... Page 300 ... Edwards, 222 A.D.2d 603, 635 N.Y.S.2d 274, 275 (2d Dep't 1995) (holding that officers were permitted to open door after ... ...
-
People v. Bacquie, 2016-08051, Ind. No. 896/14.
...Estrella, 10 N.Y.3d 945, 946, 862 N.Y.S.2d 857, 893 N.E.2d 134 ; People v. McKane, 267 A.D.2d 253, 700 N.Y.S.2d 40 ; People v. Edwards, 222 A.D.2d 603, 604, 635 N.Y.S.2d 274 ). However, in my view, under the circumstances of this case, Officer Sepulveda's observations were not sufficient to......