People v. Hines
| Decision Date | 09 November 1989 |
| Citation | 547 N.Y.S.2d 435,155 A.D.2d 722 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph S. HINES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert J. Krzys, Amsterdam, for appellant.
Guy P. Tomlinson, Dist. Atty., Fonda, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, WEISS, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.), rendered November 16, 1987, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
On August 19, 1986 at approximately 3:30 A.M., State Trooper Thomas Aiken was patrolling the Thruway with his partner, Trooper Brian Callahan, heading in an easterly direction in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County. According to the Troopers' testimony, Aiken and Callahan observed a car being driven westbound, in the passing lane, with its high beams on. Aiken, who was also traveling in the passing lane, flashed his high beams two or three times in an attempt to get the driver to reduce the intensity of his headlights. When the driver failed to respond, Aiken made a U-turn at the next break in the median and pulled the driver over. Aiken approached the driver's side of the vehicle while Callahan approached the passenger's side. Defendant rolled down the window and Aiken asked for his license and registration and informed defendant that he was being stopped for having his high beams on. When Aiken asked defendant why he had failed to switch to his low beams, defendant replied that he "forgot" and then proceeded to switch his headlights to low intensity.
When defendant handed Aiken his license and registration, Aiken detected the odor of burning marihuana from inside the vehicle. Aiken testified that he was familiar with the smell of marihuana based upon his participation in a State Police Academy drug training course and that he had made approximately 100 arrests for drug-related offenses.
Shining his flashlight into the car, Aiken observed a small cigarette butt in the ashtray that was squashed up, had no filter, and was burned down to the end. Aiken testified that when asked to hand him the ashtray, defendant pulled the ashtray out of the console and then removed the butt and threw it on the floor by his feet before handing the ashtray to Aiken. Aiken then asked defendant to step out of the car and defendant complied. Aiken retrieved the butt from inside the car, examined it and determined that it looked and smelled like marihuana. Aiken then brought defendant to the rear of the car and signaled to Callahan to bring the other two occupants back to the same spot. While walking to the rear of the car, Aiken observed defendant throw a packet of aluminum foil to the ground. Aiken picked up the packet, opened it and observed a small amount of white powdery substance, which appeared to be cocaine. Aiken then informed defendant that he was under arrest for possession of cocaine. Aiken returned to the vehicle and removed the keys from the ignition and also a knife that he saw sticking out between the seat and the console.
Aiken then proceeded to the rear of the car and opened the hatchback. He had observed that no barriers separated the rear compartment from the back seat. Aiken noticed that a screw was missing from the plastic molding on the right-hand side. He pulled the plastic back and looked in with his flashlight and observed a canvas suitcase inside. Aiken asked defendant what it was doing there, to which defendant replied that he did not know. Aiken pulled the suitcase out and opened it. Inside he found two brown paper bags and 11 clear plastic bags. The brown paper bags contained many aluminum foil packets wrapped in plastic, and the clear plastic bags appeared to contain marihuana. Defendant and his two female companions were placed under arrest and put in the back of the troop car. Aiken then searched the rest of the vehicle for further evidence and found only some rolling papers in the console area.
Defendant was subsequently indicted on charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and for the offenses of unlawful possession of marihuana and failure to dim headlamps.
Defendant moved to, inter alia, suppress the tangible physical evidence that was obtained and to determine whether sufficient probable cause existed for his arrest. A suppression hearing was held at which defendant testified. Defendant's account of the incident differed from Aiken's on the following facts: defendant claimed he was driving in the right-hand and not the passing lane when he was stopped; defendant denied that marihuana was being smoked in the car and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hinshaw
...N.Y.S.2d 84 [3d Dept. 1991] ; People v. Phillips, 159 A.D.2d 326, 326, 552 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept. 1990] ; People v. Hines, 155 A.D.2d 722, 724, 547 N.Y.S.2d 435 [3d Dept. 1989] ; People v. Hoffman, 135 A.D.2d 299, 301, 525 N.Y.S.2d 376 [3d Dept. 1988] ; People v. Millan, 118 A.D.2d 236, 24......
-
People v. Henry
...search of the car based on probable cause disclosed the information justifying the arrest of the defendant); People v. Hines, 155 A.D.2d 722, 547 N.Y.S.2d 435 (3d Dept.1989), lv. denied, 76 N.Y.2d 736, 558 N.Y.S.2d 898, 557 N.E.2d 1194 (1990). Further, probable cause to arrest a person and ......
-
Barr v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles
...52 A.D.3d 869, 870, 859 N.Y.S.2d 272 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 741, 864 N.Y.S.2d 399, 894 N.E.2d 663 [2008] ; People v. Hines, 155 A.D.2d 722, 724, 547 N.Y.S.2d 435 [1989], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 736, 558 N.Y.S.2d 898, 557 N.E.2d 1194 [1990] ; but see People v. Allen, 89 A.D.3d 742, 743, 9......
-
People v. Langhorne
...constituted proof that the statute had been violated ( id. at 395–396, 198 N.Y.S.2d 276, 165 N.E.2d 851 ).In People v. Hines , 155 A.D.2d 722, 724, 547 N.Y.S.2d 435 (1989), the Appellate Division, Third Department, determined that a state trooper had lawfully stopped the defendant's vehicle......