People v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 19 April 1990 |
| Citation | 160 A.D.2d 501,554 N.Y.S.2d 167 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A.D. Grande, Spring Valley, for respondent.
W.L. Rich, for defendant-appellant.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and ROSS, ROSENBERGER, ASCH and ELLERIN, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J. at hearing; Ivan Warner, J. at trial and sentence), rendered June 7, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender to an indeterminate period of imprisonment of 2 1/2 to 5 years, is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's vehicle was pulled over for driving with expired inspection and registration stickers. Upon being unable to produce the "paperwork" to the vehicle, the officer asked defendant to exit the car. At that point, police officer Heron observed a paper bag containing a glass tube. When he seized the bag to examine the tube more closely, he saw that the bag contained not only the tube, but another clear zip-lock bag containing a white powdery substance the officer believed to be cocaine (although subsequent laboratory analysis revealed it was not). Defendant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and, during a search incidental to the arrest, a .38 caliber revolver was recovered along with five live rounds of ammunition.
Probable cause must exist before seizing an object in plain view (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564). That probable cause was present here. Officer Heron had experience making drug arrests and was familiar with drug paraphernalia, including crack pipes. The officer's observation of the glass pipe provided probable cause to believe that the pipe or bag contained crack or crack residue, in violation of the drug laws. In this respect, a "crack pipe" is analogous to glassine envelopes, plastic vials and tin packets, which are also not illegal, but in a drug-prone location are a telltale sign of illicit activity justifying minimal intrusion (see, People v. Greenridge, 131 A.D.2d 303, 304-305, 515 N.Y.S.2d 788; but see, People v. Richie, 77 A.D.2d 667, 668, 430 N.Y.S.2d 154).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen
...Residue Possession of a crack pipe is itself a "telltale sign" of illegal use of controlled substances. People v. Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 501, 502, 554 N.Y.S.2d 167 (1st Dep't 1990). When found to contain a narcotic residue, the pipe established probable cause for defendant's arrest. "So long a......
-
People v. Fasciani
...2d 1250 (A) [Sup Ct. Kings Co. 2009] (citing People v Kettles, 62 A.D.3d 902, 879 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2d Dept 2009] ; People v Edwards , 160 A.D.2d 501, 554 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept 1990] ). The officer's observation of the crack pipe and lighter, coupled with an unconscious, drowsy, incoherent dri......
-
People v. Germany
...v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689, 548 N.Y.S.2d 257 (2d Dept.1989). In 1990, the crack pipe was added to the group. People v. Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 501, 554 N.Y.S.2d 167 (1st Dept.1990). In all of these transparent packages cases, the Courts generally found that an additional factor established the ......
- Sieratzki v. Jacobs