People v. Goggans
| Decision Date | 27 November 1989 |
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 689,548 N.Y.S.2d 257 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Joel GOGGANS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert H. Weiss, Long Beach, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, BRACKEN and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered July 15, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At the hearing held in connection with that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence, a police officer testified that on November 10, 1987, he observed the defendant standing next to the passenger side of an automobile which was stopped in the middle of a road. The officer testified that as he approached to within eight feet of the defendant, he observed the defendant reach into a brown paper bag and remove a clear plastic vial which contained a white powder which appeared to be the substance known as "crack", a form of cocaine. After displaying the vial of crack to the occupant of the vehicle, and after observing the approach of the officer, the defendant placed the vial back into the paper bag, and began to walk away, concealing the bag underneath his coat. The officer then identified himself, ordered the defendant to stop, and reached into the defendant's overcoat. This search yielded 11 plastic vials which contained what appeared to be crack, and the defendant was thereupon placed under arrest.
The arresting officer possessed expert knowledge of the customs of drug dealers and the usual appearance and packaging of their product. Based on his previous experience, this officer unquestionably had probable cause to believe that the white substance contained in the clear plastic vial offered by the defendant to a passing motorist was in fact crack or some other narcotic drug. Recognizing the reliability of the judgment exercised by veteran police officers in the context of similar situations, we have frequently held that probable cause to arrest exists when the officer in question personally observes the defendant in possession of either a clear vial or a glassine envelope containing a white powder or substance under circumstances which reveal that the substance in question has been, or is about to be, sold (see, People v. Mariner, 147 A.D.2d 659, 660, 538 N.Y.S.2d 61; People v. Burke, 146 A.D.2d 706, 707, 537 N.Y.S.2d 60; People v. Mann, 143 A.D.2d 200, 201, 531 N.Y.S.2d 646; People v. Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473, 519 N.Y.S.2d 571; see also, United States v. Rosario, 2nd Cir., 638 F.2d 460). The clear plastic vial is, like the small glassine envelope, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gomcin
...in the context of the expertise possessed by the officers (see, People v. Alexander, 218 A.D.2d 284, 640 N.Y.S.2d 28; People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689, 548 N.Y.S.2d 257). Viewed in this light, it clearly and reasonably appeared more probable than not to the officers that when the defendant......
-
People v. Brockington
...traffic in cocaine in which the clear plastic vial has become the "hallmark" of this illicit drug trade ( see, People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689, 548 N.Y.S.2d 257; People v. Way, 147 Misc.2d 821, 824, 557 N.Y.S.2d 844; People v. Small, 144 Misc.2d 560, 562, 544 N.Y.S.2d 714; cf. People v. M......
-
People v. Way
...(People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 603-604, 435 N.Y.S.2d 679, 416 N.E.2d 1015) (other citations omitted)." People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689, 690, 548 N.Y.S.2d 257, 258; see also People v. Small, 144 Misc.2d 560, 562, 544 N.Y.S.2d 714; People v. Garcia, 131 Misc.2d 1000, 1004-06, 502 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Geddes
...that the seizure of this evidence occurred immediately before, rather than simultaneously with, the formal arrest" ( People v. Goggans, 155 A.D.2d 689, 691, 548 N.Y.S.2d 257 ; see People v. Charles, 222 A.D.2d at 689, 636 N.Y.S.2d 88 ). Moreover, the defendant would have been arrested even ......