People v. Weddington
| Decision Date | 08 April 1993 |
| Citation | 596 N.Y.S.2d 179,192 A.D.2d 750 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wesley E. WEDDINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, Dist. Atty. (Joann Rose Parry, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, CREW and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered January 3, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant was stopped in the early morning hours of August 16, 1991 while driving an automobile in the City of Binghamton, Broome County, when a police officer noticed that the taillights on the vehicle were not on. Defendant was unable to produce his license or registration, and a radio check indicated that the Connecticut license plates on the vehicle were stolen. Defendant was then placed under arrest for possession of stolen property. A second radio check revealed that the vehicle had been reported stolen in Connecticut. The vehicle was then impounded and, during a subsequent inventory search, police found numerous packets of cocaine in the vehicle. After County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence found in the vehicle, as well as a statement he made to police after his arrest, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Testimony at the suppression hearing demonstrated that defendant's arrest and the impounding of the vehicle were premised upon the radio transmissions the arresting officer received advising that the license plates and the vehicle were stolen. While probable cause may be based upon police radio bulletins, the presumption of probable cause disappears once a defendant challenges the police action and the People must demonstrate that the sending agency possessed the requisite knowledge to justify the police conduct (see, People v. Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583, 588, 578 N.Y.S.2d 454, 585 N.E.2d 766, cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1210, 117 L.Ed.2d 448; People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369, 375, 465 N.Y.S.2d 857, 452 N.E.2d 1185; People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210, 213-214, 366 N.Y.S.2d 622, 326 N.E.2d 294). Here, no such demonstration was made. Based upon the peculiar facts of this case, however, reversal is not warranted. At the suppression...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Leonard
...that the People are entitled to one full-opportunity to present relevant evidence at a suppression hearing” (People v. Weddington, 192 A.D.2d 750, 751, 596 N.Y.S.2d 179 [1993]; see People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 95–96, 255 N.Y.S.2d 850, 204 N.E.2d 188 [1965] ), and the People have alread......
-
People v. Ynoa
...that the sender or sending agency had probable cause to act (id., at 214, 326 N.E.2d 294, 366 N.Y.S.2d 622; see, People v. Weddington, 192 A.D.2d 750, 751, 596 N.Y.S.2d 179). Although the People argue otherwise, County Court's determination that a sufficient Lypka challenge was made by both......
-
People v. Perrin
...clear that the People are entitled to one full opportunity to present relevant evidence at a suppression hearing" (People v. Weddington, 192 A.D.2d 750, 751, 596 N.Y.S.2d 179; see, People v. Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636, 642-643, 412 N.Y.S.2d 345, 384 N.E.2d 1269; People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86......
-
People v. Hummer
...cause to act (see, People v. Ynoa, 223 A.D.2d 975, 977, 636 N.Y.S.2d 888, 890; see also, People v. Lypka, supra; People v. Weddington, 192 A.D.2d 750, 596 N.Y.S.2d 179). However, unless a defendant specifically challenges the reliability of the information conveyed, reliability may be assum......