People v. Henry

• Decision Date: 01 February 1999
• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 100,258 A.D.2d 473
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 832 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark HENRY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 100

685 N.Y.S.2d 100

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 832

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark HENRY, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Feb. 1, 1999.

Herbert Kellner, Smithtown, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Myong Ae Yi Roh of counsel), for respondent.

BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, THOMPSON and FRIEDMANN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered September 24, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion that was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In general, the legality of a search or seizure is to be measured by the objective circumstances, and not by the subjective motivation of the officer (see, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89; People v. Sira, --- A.D.2d ----, 680 N.Y.S.2d 101; People v. Alcide, 252 A.D.2d 592, 676 N.Y.S.2d 216; People v. Dougherty, 251 A.D.2d 344, 673 N.Y.S.2d 742, People v. Gelley, 242 A.D.2d 277, 660 N.Y.S.2d 588; People v. Reynolds, 240 A.D.2d 517, 658 N.Y.S.2d 433; People v. McCoy, 239 A.D.2d 437, 657 N.Y.S.2d 437). Here, the stop of the defendant's vehicle was objectively valid based on the officer's personal observation of a traffic violation, namely, that the vehicle did not have its headlights on at 11:40 P.M., and "is no less valid merely because the officer might also have been entertaining more serious suspicions" (People v. Dougherty, supra, at ----, 673 N.Y.S.2d 742; see, Whren v. United States, supra; People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 543 N.Y.S.2d 40, 541 N.E.2d 40; People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 10-11, 439 N.Y.S.2d 877, 422 N.E.2d 537, cert. denied 454 U.S. 854, 102 S.Ct. 301, 70 L.Ed.2d 148; People v. McCoy, supra, at 439, 657 N.Y.S.2d 437). Under the circumstances, there is no merit to the defendant's suggestion that the stop of the vehicle was racially motivated and therefore constituted an equal protection violation.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are...