PEOPLE v. RIVERA (2009)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1], [12] ), defendant contends that the police conducted an illegal inventory search of his vehicle and thus that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the drugs found during that search.   We reject defendant's contention.  “Following a lawful arrest of the driver of an automobile that must be then impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle” pursuant to established police policy (People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252, 255, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the applicable order of the Rochester Police Department concerning inventory searches sets forth “a standard procedure that was rationally designed to meet the objective justifying the search and that limited the ․ discretion” of the police in conducting the search (People v. Cooper, 48 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 849 N.Y.S.2d 825, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 861, 860 N.Y.S.2d 487, 890 N.E.2d 250;  see People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 719, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362;  People v. Wilburn, 50 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 856 N.Y.S.2d 767, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 742, 864 N.Y.S.2d 401, 894 N.E.2d 665).   Here, the People met their burden of establishing that the police followed the procedure set forth in that order in conducting the inventory search (cf. People v. Elpenord, 24 A.D.3d 465, 467, 806 N.Y.S.2d 675;  People v. Acevedo-Sanchez, 212 A.D.2d 1023, 623 N.Y.S.2d 452, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 935, 627 N.Y.S.2d 997, 651 N.E.2d 922).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, the record establishes that the police prepared a “meaningful inventory list” (Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d at 256, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385).

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

MEMORANDUM: