People v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 111723 |
| Citation | 151 N.Y.S.3d 267,196 A.D.3d 1010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro SANCHEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
196 A.D.3d 1010
151 N.Y.S.3d 267
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Pedro SANCHEZ, Appellant.
111723
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: May 27, 2021
Decided and Entered: July 29, 2021
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Joseph T. Murphy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Colangelo, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Rich Jr., J.), rendered January 18, 2019, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.
In December 2017, a state trooper conducted a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle, followed by a consent and canine sniff search that disclosed marihuana, heroin and paraphernalia associated with drug sales in the vehicle. Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.1 After County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle, a jury trial ensued, after which defendant was convicted as charged.
County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of eight years for each conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision, and to a lesser concurrent prison term on the remaining conviction. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion, because the search of his vehicle was not based on probable cause and the canine sniff search exceeded the bounds of his consent to search. At the suppression hearing, the state trooper testified that at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 1, 2017, while stopped on the on ramp of an exit on Interstate 86 in Chemung County, he observed an SUV, later determined to be operated and owned by defendant, traveling at 90 miles per hour and, as he pursued the vehicle, "swerving violently in and out of the passing lane." "[The vehicle] maintained the passing lane, exited and went over the white line multiple times," at which point the trooper conducted the traffic stop. He approached the vehicle, obtained defendant's driver's license and observed two passengers, in the front passenger seat and rear seat, later determined to be defendant's son and a close family friend, respectively. The trooper testified that, as a result of the speeding and violent swerving, he asked defendant to step out of the vehicle so he could talk to him and ascertain if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As they were walking to the back of defendant's vehicle, the trooper radioed for routine backup. A sheriff's deputy and his canine partner, followed by other state troopers, responded. The trooper testified that during defendant's field interview, defendant stated that he was traveling from Brooklyn to the Town of Corning, Steuben County to see a woman and stated that he was not on any drugs and had not been drinking.
While the deputy remained with defendant, the trooper then approached the passenger side of the vehicle and spoke to the front seat passenger, who identified himself as defendant's son. The son stated that they were traveling from Brooklyn to Corning to see a male friend. The trooper confirmed that the son's account of whom they were traveling to see was different than the account provided by defendant, and further testified that "they had no address or any sort of physical location they were going to." The trooper stated that, at that point, he "smell[ed] a strong odor of mari[h]uana coming from within the vehicle." After the trooper mentioned the odor, defendant's son admitted that he was in possession of a small bag of marihuana and had
been smoking marihuana in the vehicle. The trooper testified that, knowing he had probable cause to search the vehicle, he went behind the vehicle and asked defendant for consent to search the vehicle, which, he testified, was given.
The deputy's canine partner performed a sniff search that indicated heavily on the center console area and the back trunk
area of the vehicle, which signified that drugs were present. The trooper then conducted a thorough search of the vehicle and found nine packets of a 10–pack "deck" of heroin between the driver seat and the center console, two large bags of white powder and "two bricks" of heroin hidden in the back of the center console, and one "spent" packet of heroin and a straw on defendant's person. A small bag of marihuana was also found in the son's pants pocket. After the search, all three occupants of the vehicle were placed under arrest and transported separately to the State Police barracks. Defendant was read his Miranda rights and ultimately took sole responsibility for all the drugs found in the vehicle.
We reject defendant's contention that the search of his vehicle was unlawful. We note initially that defendant does not challenge the trooper's authority to stop the vehicle and detain him for a field interview. As to the ensuing canine search and thorough search that followed, "[i]t is well established that the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle" ( People v. Hines, 172 A.D.3d 1649, 1651, 99 N.Y.S.3d 786 [2019] [internal quotation mark, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 951, 110 N.Y.S.3d 650, 134 N.E.3d 649 [2019] ; see People v. Dolan, 165 A.D.3d 1499, 1500, 86 N.Y.S.3d 306 [2018] ; People v. Cuffie, 109 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 972 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1087, 981 N.Y.S.2d 673, 4 N.E.3d 975 [2014] ).2 The trooper testified that he received training at the State Police academy, which included "some training in
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rivera
...quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 973, 125 N.Y.S.3d 11, 148 N.E.3d 475 [2020] ; see People v. Sanchez, 196 A.D.3d 1010, 1013–1014, 151 N.Y.S.3d 267 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1029, 153 N.Y.S.3d 435, 175 N.E.3d 460 [2021] ). Defendant argues that counsel did not pr......
-
People v. Davis
...marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 937, 109 N.Y.S.3d 724, 133 N.E.3d 427 [2019] ; see People v. Sanchez, 196 A.D.3d 1010, 1013, 151 N.Y.S.3d 267 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1029, 153 N.Y.S.3d 435, 175 N.E.3d 460 [2021] ).The testimony at the suppression hearing esta......
-
People v. Palmer
...assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to move to reopen the suppression hearing (see People v. Sanchez , 196 A.D.3d 1010, 1013-1014, 151 N.Y.S.3d 267 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1029, 153 N.Y.S.3d 435, 175 N.E.3d 460 [2021] ; People v. Blocker , 128 A.D.3d 1483, 1484, ......
-
People v. Thomas
...traceable to that belief. However, deferring to County Court's assessment of Pirozzolo's credibility (see People v. Sanchez, 196 A.D.3d 1010, 1013, 151 N.Y.S.3d 267 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1029, 153 N.Y.S.3d 435, 175 N.E.3d 460 [2021] ), we conclude that Pirozzolo's search of d......