PEOPLE v. BLACK (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law former § 265.02[4] ).  Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun seized by the police from the taxicab in which defendant was a passenger.  We reject that contention.  Police officers testified at the suppression hearing that they responded to a specified intersection based upon a 911 call that a man with a gun was located there.  Upon their arrival, the officers encountered two victims who stated that they had been robbed, and the victims provided detailed descriptions of the perpetrators.  One of the victims suggested that the perpetrators might be in a taxicab located less than a block away.  The officers then stopped the taxicab and removed defendant and another suspect from the vehicle.  In addition, the officers recovered the gun from the vehicle.  “It is well settled that the police may stop a vehicle based upon a ‘reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime’ ” (People v. Taylor, 31 A.D.3d 1141, 1142, 817 N.Y.S.2d 816, quoting People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749, 753, 622 N.Y.S.2d 483, 646 N.E.2d 785, cert. denied 516 U.S. 905, 116 S.Ct. 271, 133 L.Ed.2d 192).  We reject the People's contention that defendant had no right to contest the legality of the stop of the vehicle, inasmuch as he was a passenger therein (see People v. Millan, 69 N.Y.2d 514, 516, 516 N.Y.S.2d 168, 508 N.E.2d 903;  People v. Nicodemus, 247 A.D.2d 833, 836, 669 N.Y.S.2d 98, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 858, 677 N.Y.S.2d 88, 699 N.E.2d 448), but we nevertheless conclude that the police had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle “based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant[ed the stop]” (People v. Brooks, 266 A.D.2d 864, 864, 697 N.Y.S.2d 804 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Here, the stop occurred in the early morning hours during a rainstorm in an area with little activity, and the police observed the taxicab less than a block from the crime scene, within 10 to 15 minutes after the commission of the crime (see People v. Van Every, 1 A.D.3d 977, 978–979, 767 N.Y.S.2d 176, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 602, 776 N.Y.S.2d 233, 808 N.E.2d 369;  People v. Glaze, 255 A.D.2d 932, 680 N.Y.S.2d 381, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 853, 688 N.Y.S.2d 500, 710 N.E.2d 1099;  People v. Willsey, 198 A.D.2d 911, 604 N.Y.S.2d 461, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 812, 611 N.Y.S.2d 148, 633 N.E.2d 503;  cf. Brooks, 266 A.D.2d 864, 697 N.Y.S.2d 804;  Nicodemus, 247 A.D.2d at 835, 669 N.Y.S.2d 98).  Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: