People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 October 1986 |
| Citation | 506 N.Y.S.2d 917,123 A.D.2d 652 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Norwood WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Katherine C. Edgell, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Robert I. Caloras, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, LAWRENCE and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glass, J.), rendered January 27, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dubin, J.), of the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements.
Judgment affirmed.
Three plainclothes police officers in an unmarked car observed the defendant leaning on a parked car, holding a rust-colored jacket. As the officers pulled up behind him, but before they had emerged from their car, the defendant either placed the jacket on the bumperguard, as one officer testified, or threw it to the ground and it caught on the bumperguard, according to the other, and walked away quickly. One of the officers went over to the jacket, picked it up, and inside found a plastic bag containing 49 foil packets containing cocaine. Another followed the defendant and upon informing him that cocaine had been found in the jacket, arrested and searched him, recovering a glassine envelope of heroin and six foil packets containing cocaine. The defendant, who was immediately advised of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, subsequently made two inculpatory statements.
The only issue on the defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence and his statements was whether the initial search of the jacket was valid, since the finding of cocaine justified his subsequent arrest and search (see, People v. Materon, 107 A.D.2d 408, 415-416, 487 N.Y.S.2d 334; People v. Hassele, 53 A.D.2d 699, 385 N.Y.S.2d 113; People v. Thompson, 50 A.D.2d 874, 377 N.Y.S.2d 149). Criminal Term correctly concluded that it was, finding that under the circumstances here the jacket had been abandoned (see, People v. Medina, 107 A.D.2d 302, 486 N.Y.S.2d 754; People v. Chestnut, 91 A.D.2d 981, 457 N.Y.S.2d 573), and was therefore beyond the scope of constitutional protection (Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 698, 4 L.Ed.2d 668, reh. denied, 362 U.S. 984, 80 S.Ct. 1056, 4 L.Ed.2d 1019; People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 592...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wallace
...). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v. Wade, 137 A.D.2d 638, 638–639, 524 N.Y.S.2d 519 ; People v. Williams, 123 A.D.2d 652, 653, 506 N.Y.S.2d 917 ; People v. Brown, 40 A.D.2d 527, 527–528, 333 N.Y.S.2d 791 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Cour......
-
People v. Marrero
...was approached by the police, there is no basis to find that the abandonment was nullified by any police illegality (People v. Williams, 123 A.D.2d 652, 506 N.Y.S.2d 917; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure [2d ed.] § 7.6(b) at 473-474; cf. People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, 418 N.Y.S.2d 352, 391 N.......
-
People v. Boone
...bag when he dropped it prior to being stopped by the police (see, People v. Aybar, 162 A.D.2d 283, 556 N.Y.S.2d 875; People v. Williams, 123 A.D.2d 652, 506 N.Y.S.2d 917). We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review......
-
People v. McCants
...since he discarded it before the officers even approached him (see, People v. Wade, 137 A.D.2d 638, 524 N.Y.S.2d 519; People v. Williams, 123 A.D.2d 652, 506 N.Y.S.2d 917). ...