People v. Grimes

• Decision Date: 13 March 2020
• Docket Number: KA 18–00535,1222
• Citation: People v. Grimes, 181 A.D.3d 1251, 121 N.Y.S.3d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jakim GRIMES, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 1251

121 N.Y.S.3d 466

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jakim GRIMES, Defendant–Appellant.

1222

KA 18–00535

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: March 13, 2020

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16[12] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized from his person as well as statements made to the arresting officer.Contrary to the People's contention, the specific contentions raised by defendant concerning the suppression ruling are preserved for our review inasmuch as they were raised either in the motion papers or "by specifically placing [the contentions] for disposition before the suppression court"( People v. Vasquez , 66 N.Y.2d 968, 970, 498 N.Y.S.2d 788, 489 N.E.2d 757[1985], cert denied475 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct. 1517, 89 L.Ed.2d 916[1986];cf.People v. Claudio , 64 N.Y.2d 858, 858–859, 487 N.Y.S.2d 318, 476 N.E.2d 644[1985] ).In any event, the issues raised on appeal were "brought to the attention of the [suppression]court at a time and in a way that gave the latter the opportunity to remedy the problem and thereby avert reversible error"( People v. Luperon , 85 N.Y.2d 71, 78, 623 N.Y.S.2d 735, 647 N.E.2d 1243[1995] ).Furthermore, we agree with defendant that the court erred in issuing its suppression ruling without resolving, in the first instance, whether the pat frisk of defendant was lawful.

On the day of defendant's arrest, a police officer observed defendant's vehicle stop at a suspected drug house.An occupant of the vehicle entered the house only to exit moments later and reenter the vehicle, which was then driven away.Based on those observations, the observing officer suspected that a drug transaction had just taken place.The officer therefore instructed a fellow officer (arresting officer) to follow the vehicle to "try to get a reason to stop it."

The arresting officer, while following defendant's vehicle, observed the driver commit two traffic infractions.The arresting officer thus engaged his emergency lights and stopped the vehicle.Upon approaching the vehicle on foot, the arresting officer "noticed in the driver['s] side mirror that the driver was aggressively moving around in the seat."It appeared to the arresting officer that the driver "was reaching behind him," causing the arresting officer to fear that the driver, later identified as defendant, was reaching for a weapon.Although defendant admitted to the arresting officer that he did not possess a valid license, he produced a nondriver identification card.After ordering defendant to exit the vehicle, the arresting officer conducted a pat frisk during which he felt a hard object in defendant's pants that the arresting officer believed to be narcotics.The arresting officer placed handcuffs on defendant and advised him of his Miranda rights.After defendant waived such rights, the arresting officer asked him in sum and substance what was in his pants.In response, defendant said that he had seven grams of crack cocaine.Defendant was then arrested and transported to the police station, where, at the arresting officer's request, defendant removed the cocaine from his underwear.

Following a hearing, the court denied that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress the cocaine and his statements to the arresting officer.Although defendant contended that the pat frisk was unlawful, the court declined to resolve that issue, reasoning that the arresting officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity before the frisk was conducted, thus authorizing the...