People v. Heston

• Decision Date: 12 July 1989
• Citation: 543 N.Y.S.2d 803,152 A.D.2d 999
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Russell J. HESTON, Respondent, and Steven Trevor, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 803

543 N.Y.S.2d 803

152 A.D.2d 999

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Russell J. HESTON, Respondent and Steven Trevor, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

July 12, 1989.

Patrick L. Kirk, Herkimer, for appellant.

George Aney, Herkimer, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress tangible evidence (marijuana, cocaine and a billy club) on the ground that it was the product of an illegal stop and seizure of defendant and his passenger. The suppression court erroneously treated the officer's approach of defendant's vehicle as a "stop" that had to be supported by reasonable suspicion. The mere approach of an occupied parked car for inquiry is a minimal intrusion which is not the equivalent of a stop (see, People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447; see also, People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 893, 524 N.Y.S.2d 378, 519 N.E.2d 289). Approaching a citizen to request information is justified when the officer has an objective credible reason to do so, irrespective of whether the officer has any indication of criminal activity (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). Here, the officer testified that he wanted to check the car, which was parked with its dome light on, to see if there was a problem or if its occupants were all right. He also stated that his suspicion was aroused because the area was frequently used for drinking and drug use. That is a sufficient basis to justify the approach and inquiry (see, e.g., People v. Harrison, supra, 57 N.Y.2d at 475, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447).

The officer's conduct was similarly justified at every subsequent stage of the confrontation. In response to the officer's inquiry, the driver stated that he did not have a driver's license, indicating a possible Vehicle and Traffic Law violation. The officer then observed a rolled dollar bill in plain view on the floor of the vehicle. He testified that his experience informed him that rolled bills were used to ingest cocaine. Such information and observation provided the officer with reasonable suspicion (cf., People v. Bennett, supra; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 414-415, 420, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39), and justified him in ordering the occupants out of the car (see, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331). The officer's reasonable suspicion was buttressed by his observation that the passenger, before existing the vehicle, concealed something in his pants. At that point,...