People v. Portelli

• Decision Date: 10 April 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02467,983 N.Y.S.2d 355,116 A.D.3d 1163
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alexander PORTELLI, Appellant.

116 A.D.3d 1163
983 N.Y.S.2d 355
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02467

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Alexander PORTELLI, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

April 10, 2014.

[983 N.Y.S.2d 356]

Marshall Nadan, Kingston, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., STEIN, McCARTHY and ROSE, JJ.

STEIN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered July 6, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On July 4, 2009, Robert Haberski—a police officer in the Town of Saugerties, Ulster County—received a tip from a confidential

[983 N.Y.S.2d 357]

informant that a vehicle traveling in the area had a large quantity of ecstacy in the glove box. After locating the vehicle described by the informant, Haberski observed that the driver was not wearing his seat belt. Police initiated a traffic stop and defendant, who was driving, was asked to exit the vehicle. After admitting that he had a switchblade in his pants, defendant was placed in custody. Haberski then searched the glove box and found a plastic baggy containing a large quantity of ecstacy and a variety of prescription medications. The vehicle was impounded and defendant was transported to the police station, where he was given his Miranda warnings and he provided a statement.

Defendant was subsequently charged by indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Defendant moved to suppress, among other things, the evidence found in the glove box. After a suppression hearing, County Court determined that there was probable cause for the police to stop and search the vehicle and denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized therefrom. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced, in accord with the plea agreement, to four years in prison plus two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred by denying his motion to suppress the ecstasy found in the glove box because the vehicle was improperly searched. Police may legally stop a vehicle if they have “reasonable suspicion that [a] defendant has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime” ( People v. Coffey, 107 A.D.3d 1047, 1049, 966 N.Y.S.2d 277 [2013],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1041, 972 N.Y.S.2d 538, 995 N.E.2d 854 [2013];see People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 [1976];People v. Houghtalen, 89 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 931 N.Y.S.2d 922 [2011] ). Further, probable cause exists for a traffic stop if an officer observes a defendant committing a traffic violation ( see People v. Thompson, 106 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 963 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2013];People v. Horge, 80 A.D.3d 1074, 1074, 915 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2011] ). A tip from a confidential informant may provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the People demonstrate the...