Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J., at hearing; Jeffrey Atlas, J., at plea and sentence), rendered August 31, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The veteran detective, who had extensive training in narcotics interdiction (see, People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 111, 216 N.E.2d 321), had an objective credible reason to approach and request information from defendant at the Port Authority Bus Terminal after defendant arrived at the last minute for a bus that was destined for a city known to be a destination for drug deliveries, carrying a plastic bag through which the outline of a shoebox was visible (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 193, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204; People v. Wellington, 265 A.D.2d 213, 698 N.Y.S.2d 2, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 886, 705 N.Y.S.2d 19, 726 N.E.2d 496; People v. Gabriel, 264 A.D.2d 641, 695 N.Y.S.2d 557, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 823, 702 N.Y.S.2d 593, 724 N.E.2d 385; cf., People v. Fields, 257 A.D.2d 387, 683 N.Y.S.2d 70). The detective testified that drug couriers often board buses at the last minute in order to minimize contact with the police and often use shoeboxes to carry drugs. We note that the record fails to support defendant's claim that defendant's late arrival for a bus was the only basis for this Level I inquiry cited by the detective in his testimony or by the court in its findings. The detective's inquiry of defendant, after first informing him that he did not have to speak to him and leaving the aisle free for him to leave, was neither accusatory nor intimidating. Once defendant denied having any luggage, which was contrary to the detective's observations, the detective had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, permitting further inquiry. Since defendant's denial of ownership constituted an abandonment, the detective properly searched the bag and recovered drugs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 09, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)