People v. Henriquez
| Decision Date | 14 June 1990 |
| Citation | 556 N.Y.S.2d 581,162 A.D.2d 206 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Felix HENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
T.J. Aisenson, New York City, for respondent.
E. Blumberg, for appellant.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and ROSS, KASSAL, ELLERIN and RUBIN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J., at trial and sentence; Joan Sudolnik, J., at suppression hearing), rendered May 6, 1985, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree [Penal Law § 220.09] and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree [P.L. § 220.50], and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from one to three years and six months, is unanimously affirmed.
Pursuant to a prior order of this Court (150 AD2d 227, 543 N.Y.S.2d 296), this appeal was held in abeyance and the matter remanded for a suppression hearing on defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. The hearing having been conducted, and a ruling denying defendant's motion to suppress having been rendered on December 8, 1989, we have examined the completed record, and conclude that there are no grounds for disturbing the judgment of conviction.
On March 21, 1984, defendant was stopped by police officers as he drove an automobile which, two weeks earlier, had been impounded by the police in connection with a narcotics arrest, and then stolen from outside the police precinct. Three police officers assigned to search for the automobile staked out the address to which it had been registered and, upon seeing defendant drive by in the stolen vehicle, approached with guns drawn and directed defendant and his passenger, co-defendant Ramon Madera, 1 to put their hands on the dashboard. On the front seat midway between the two men, who were taken by surprise when confronted by the police, was a brown paper bag with its top folded over. Defendant and co-defendant were removed from the car and handcuffed, and the bag retrieved. Upon opening it, the police discovered a number of glassine envelopes, a plastic bag containing white powder (which later proved to be heroin), and a white powdery laxative commonly used to dilute heroin. This physical evidence was the subject of defendant's motion to suppress. We affirm the denial thereof.
First, the record establishes that the police stop of the vehicle, which matched the make, color, and license plate number of the car reported stolen from police custody, was supported by probable cause and in all other respects proper. See, generally, People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210, 366 N.Y.S.2d 622, 326 N.E.2d 294. Once defendant was under arrest and the vehicle recovered, the warrantless inspection of the paper bag was permissible for the purposes of routine inventory search. See People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386, 477 N.Y.S.2d 103, 465 N.E.2d 823.
Defendant's claim that the prosecutor made an improper comment during summation was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, CPL § 470.05(2). Were ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dickens
...the discretion of the officer in question (People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 719, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362; People v. Henriquez, 162 A.D.2d 206, 207, 556 N.Y.S.2d 581). The officer who performed the search of the bag testified that he did so to ensure his safety and the safety of his ......