People v. Frank

• Citation: 61 Misc.2d 450,305 N.Y.S.2d 940
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff v. Lester FRANK, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1969
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 940

305 N.Y.S.2d 940

61 Misc.2d 450

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff v. Lester FRANK, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Queens County, Part I.

June 9, 1969.

Arthur W. Lonschein, Jamaica, for defendant, for the motion.

Thomas J. Mackell, Dist. Atty., by Lawrence T. Gresser, Asst. Dist. Atty., in opposition.

MEMORANDUM

J. IRWIN SHAPIRO, Justice.

The defendant has been indicted for criminal possession of a stolen Cadillac automobile. He now moves to suppress said automobile.

Involved in the disposition to be made in this matter is a construction of section 401, subdivision 4, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which authorizes a police officer to demand the production of the certificate of registration of a motor vehicle for inspection and other information relative thereto, and the extent of inquiry permissible under that statute. The operative facts developed upon the suppression hearing are these:

Prior to November 24, 1967, the New York State Motor Vehicle Bureau informed Detective George Rapp of the Auto Squad that a 1967 black Cadillac had been registered in the name of one Frank Lester of 161--01 Union Turnpike by means of a Motor Vehicle Bureau MV--50 form which had been reported stolen from an automobile dealer and that registration plate XL3976 was issued upon such registration. MV--50 forms are furnished by the Motor Vehicle Bureau solely to dealers for use by a dealer in registering an automobile sold by him in the name of the vendee.

Investigation disclosed that the registered Cadillac had been stolen on August 23, 1967, The same day on which it was registered in defendant's name, by means of the stolen MV--50 form. As a result of this information, Detective Rapp, on a number of occasions, visited the address given on the registration--a gas station--in unsuccessful attempts to locate the Cadillac which he was seeking.

On November 24, 1967 Rapp and his partner again visited the gas station, and this time they saw parked thereon a 1967 blue Cadillac bearing registration plate LES--77. Since this Cadillac did not fit the description of a Black Cadillac bearing license plate XL3976 that Rapp was looking for, he telephoned the Motor Vehicle Bureau and ascertained that plate LES--77 had been issued to Lester Frank of 160--01 Union Turnpike and that, according to that registration, that car bore serial number P--7187028. The serial number set forth on the stolen MV--50 form, however, was P--7167028--the only difference between the two being that the third digit was a 6 instead of an 8.

Rapp and his partner then entered the gas station, identified themselves as police officers and asked for Lester Frank. Defendant acknowledged that he was that person, and Rapp told defendant that they were investigating his car and would like to take a look at it, and defendant said, 'There it is, go ahead'. ¹ Rapp then raised the hood of the car and found the serial number on the motor to be P--7176403. This was a different serial number from the serial number of the car on the plate affixed to the doorpost. Thereupon Rapp informed defendant that he had reason to believe that Frank was in possession of a stolen car. Rapp then advised Frank of his constitutional rights to remain silent, to an attorney, and his other rights, and he asked defendant if he would cooperate and answer questions. Defendant replied, 'Go ahead, shoot. I am over 21. I will answer'. Defendant then stated, in answer to questions, that he had obtained the Cadillac from an unknown man who had been coming in to his place of business with that car for the previous six months; that he had paid this unknown man $5,000 in cash for the car; and that he registered the car with a part 4 stub (of the certificate of registration) he received from the seller of the car. Rapp exhibited to defendant photostats of the papers on file at the Motor Vehicle Bureau covering a black Cadillac and he asked defendant whether he had ever owned a black car and whether the signature on the papers which he exhibited to defendant was his. Defendant denied that he had ever owned a black Cadillac and stated that the signature on the photostat was not his.

Defendant contends that the raising of the hood of the automobile by Rapp constituted a search covered by the Fourth Amendment; that since it was done without a warrant therefor and it was not incident to an arrest, it was an unreasonable search; and that defendant's consent thereto was not a voluntary one but was submission to superior police authority and consequently not a knowing and effective waiver of the right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure. These contentions are all without merit for the basic element of an unreasonable search is not present in the factual picture here presented.

I

The use of motor vehicles upon the highways or streets of the State is a privilege and not a right. (People v. Rosenheimer, 209 N.Y. 115, 120, 121, 102 N.E. 530, 532, 46 L.R.A.,N.S. 977; see also Matter of Froslid v. Hults, 20 A.D.2d 498, 503, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676, 681.) In fact, as was observed in Rosenheimer, 209 N.Y. p. 120, 102 N.E. p. 532, 'the legislature might prohibit altogether the use of motor vehicles upon the highways or streets of the state.' Thus, if the privilege extended by the State to operate a motor vehicle may be denied, it follows that the legislature may circumscribe the exercise of that privilege by particular conditions. (People v. Rosenheimer, Supra, p. 121, 102 N.E. p. 532.) One of the conditions which the legislature has prescribed for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the State is the requirement, as provided in section 401, subdivision 1, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, that '(n)o motor vehicle shall be operated or driven upon the public highways of this state without first being registered in accordance with the provisions' of that law. Implementing that requirement, and manifestly in the proper exercise of police power by the state in regulating motor vehicles, subdivision 4 of section 401 provides as follows:

'* * * Every person operating a motor vehicle or trailer registered or transferred in accordance with any of the provisions of this chapter shall upon demand of any * * * peace officer or state policeman produce for inspection the certificate of registration or the registration renewal stub, for such vehicle and Shall furnish to such * * * officer or policeman any information necessary for the identification of such vehicle and its owner * * * and shall, if required, sign his name in the presence of such * * * officer or policeman as a further means of identification.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Although this statute contains no explicit provision granting power and authority to a police officer to raise the hood of an automobile in order to verify the ownership of a registered car from the serial number appearing on the motor, two considerations make it abundantly clear that instinct in the statute is the grant of such power. To begin with, to hold that absent such an express grant of power the only authorization given to the police is merely to examine the registration certificate, as provided in the first part of this statute, would frustrate the manifest purpose of the statute and render it meaningless. Obviously, the purpose of requiring the production of the registration certificate is not only to ascertain that the person in possession of it is entitled thereto but also that the vehicle itself is properly registered as provided in the statute. Unless the authority to demand a registration certificate and examine it is coupled with the power and authority to verify the accuracy of its contents, the power to demand production of the certificate is an empty and meaningless gesture. Thus, a necessary concomitant of the authority to demand production of the registration certificate is the right to verify its contents and, if such verification entails the raising of the hood of the motor vehicle to examine the serial number on the motor, then it follows that the statute includes the power and authority so to do. Secondly, such authority is in any event implicitly provided for in the statute. Not only does the statute command--as a condition, as above noted, for granting the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways--that a registration certificate shall upon demand of a peace officer be produced for inspection, but it further provides that such person 'shall furnish to such * * * officer or policeman any information necessary for the identification of such vehicle and its owner * * *.' That such command rationally encompasses the right to raise the hood of the vehicle in order that 'information necessary for the identification of such vehicle and its owner' be obtained is hardly debatable.

Defendant contends, however, that since he was not physically Operating the Cadillac and it was parked in the gas station when Detective Rapp confronted him with the statement that he was investigating the car and would like to take a look at it, subdivision 4 of section 401 is not applicable. While it is true that the statute speaks of a demand for identification of the motor vehicle upon the 'person operating a motor vehicle * * *', it would seem apparent that the intent of the statute is to cover not only the person actually operating the vehicle but also anyone else who exercises dominion over a motor vehicle 'registered or transferred in accordance with any of the provisions' of Article 14 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Thus, in People v. Koposesky, 25 A.D.2d 777, 269 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2nd Dept., where the police stopped an automobile in which the defendant was an occupant, the court stated (p. 778, 269 N.Y.S.2d p. 486) that 'the arresting officer was authorized to stop the automobile and demand of its Occupants the certificate of registration and other information.' The same court made the same observation...