People v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 02 December 2008
• Docket Number: 2006-06230.
• Citation: 57 A.D.3d 562,2008 NY Slip Op 09618,868 N.Y.S.2d 299
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT D. HENDERSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

57 A.D.3d 562

868 N.Y.S.2d 299

2008 NY Slip Op 09618

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT D. HENDERSON, Appellant.

2006-06230.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

December 2, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered May 12, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance

in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to a law enforcement official.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

"On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance" (People v Hernandez, 40 AD3d 777, 778 [2007]). "`Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place' and that the person being arrested committed the crime or offense" (People v Francis, 44 AD3d 788, 789 [2007], quoting People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). "That legal conclusion is to be made after considering `all of the facts and circumstances together'" (People v Francis, 44 AD3d at 789, quoting People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d at 423). The hearing court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses firsthand, and thus its probable cause determination is to be accorded great weight on appeal, and "will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Francis, 44 AD3d at 789; see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

Here, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence discovered in a container in the trunk of his vehicle. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that, on August 22, 2005, at the direction of police, a confidential informant placed a telephone call to a number he had, ordered a quantity of crack cocaine, and arranged to acquire the narcotics at a designated location. The defendant arrived at the designated location and sold a quantity of crack cocaine to the confidential informant from the trunk of his vehicle. On August 26, 2005 the same confidential informant ordered the same quantity of crack cocaine from the same telephone number. The defendant arrived at the same location in the same vehicle. Additionally, after he exited the vehicle and began to walk away, police observed him depositing an envelope into a trash can. The envelope was subsequently recovered by police, and it contained what appeared to be marijuana. Under these circumstances, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see generally People v Francis, 44 AD3d at 789; cf. People v Picone, 108 AD2d 932 [1985]).

Moreover, "the very circumstances that supply probable cause for the arrest may also give the police probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of the crime, a weapon or some means of escape. If so, a warrantless search of the vehicle is authorized, not as a search incident to arrest, but rather as a search falling within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement" (People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 678 [1989]; see People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 [1982]; People v Quagliata, 53 AD3d 670, 671-672 [2008]). "`[W]here police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that the car may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted, they may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, including any containers found therein'" (People v Blasich, 73 NY2d at 678-679, quoting People v Belton, 55 NY2d at 55). Under the circumstances presented here, the police were justified in searching not only the passenger compartment of the...