People v. Pincus
| Decision Date | 15 June 1992 |
| Citation | 184 A.D.2d 666,584 N.Y.S.2d 866 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raymond PINCUS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rosenthal, Vallario, Leventhal & Coffinas, Brooklyn (John M. Leventhal and Michelle Epstein, on the brief), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Sholom Twersky, and Stephanie Perl, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered August 31, 1989, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing indicates that there was a sufficient basis for stopping the vehicle which the defendant was driving because (1) the officers reasonably believed that the defendant might be intoxicated, as evidenced by his weaving over the double yellow line, and (2) the defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by failing to use his signal and rolling through a stop sign. Therefore, there is no basis for concluding, as the defendant argues, that the officers stopped the vehicle for traffic violations as a mere pretext to investigate unrelated criminal activity (see, People v. Solano, 179 A.D.2d 791, 578 N.Y.S.2d 647; People v. Rose, 159 A.D.2d 600, 552 N.Y.S.2d 459; People v. Francois, 155 A.D.2d 685, 686, 548 N.Y.S.2d 256; People v. Williams, 137 A.D.2d 569, 570, 524 N.Y.S.2d 309; People v. Gooden, 111 A.D.2d 871, 872, 490 N.Y.S.2d 270).
While asking for the defendant's license and registration, one of the officers observed the defendant attempting to hide a brown bag by pushing it under the seat. This conduct prompted the officer to ask the defendant what he was doing. The officer questioned the defendant three times and each time, instead of answering, the defendant pushed the bag further under the seat. Finally, the officer asked the defendant if he had a gun in the bag, to which the defendant responded, "Yes, I do". Thus, the defendant's own voluntary admission that the bag contained a gun supplied probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained a gun, thereby justifying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCoy
...this provided probable cause for the officers' pat down of the other occupants and search of the automobile (see, e.g., People v. Pincus, 184 A.D.2d 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 866, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 976, 591 N.Y.S.2d 145, 605 N.E.2d 881; People v. Campbell, 176 A.D.2d 814, 575 N.Y.S.2d 138). Cons......
-
People v. Stanley
...41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Overton, 188 A.D.2d 491, 592 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2d Dept., 1992]; People v. Pincus, 184 A.D.2d 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 866; People v. Matias, 137 A.D.2d 625, 524 N.Y.S.2d 367; cf., People v. Lebron, 184 A.D.2d 784, 585 N.Y.S.2d 498; People v. ......
-
People v. Williams
...credibility of the witnesses (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977] ; People v. Coleman, 306 A.D.2d 941 [2003] ; People v. Pincus, 184 A.D.2d 666 [1992] ). Thus, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily qu......
-
People v. Major
...that the defendant made voluntary statements after receiving his Miranda warnings was supported by the evidence (see, People v. Pincus, 184 A.D.2d 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 866). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's remaining ......