PEOPLE v. BEANS (2023)

Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J., at suppression hearing; Shawn T. Kelly, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered July 20, 2015, affirmed.

The suppression court, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a judicial hearing officer, properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police officer's observation of various traffic infractions provided probable cause for the stop of defendant's vehicle (see People v Hinshaw, 35 NY3d 427 [2020]). Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was patently tailored to meet constitutional objections is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Turner, 203 AD3d 758, 759 [2022]). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Since we do not find the officer's testimony to be manifestly untrue, contrary to common experience, self-contradictory, or tailored, we decline to disturb the conclusion that the testimony was credible (see People v Garland, 155 AD3d 527, 529 [2017], affd 32 NY3d 1094 [2018], cert denied ––– US ––––, 140 S Ct 2525 [2020]). “[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.