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. Sean CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J. at hearing; Brenda G. Soloff, J. at plea and sentence), rendered March 3, 2003, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Since defendant was in an area of the Port Authority Bus Terminal restricted to ticket holders, the officer had an objective, credible reason for asking defendant, whom he recognized as a person he had frequently seen in or around the terminal, whether he had a bus ticket or whether he was planning on boarding a bus (see People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992] ). Signs on the fourth floor clearly indicated that the floor was restricted to ticketed passengers only. Although it was possible to arrive at the fourth floor by a route that bypassed these warning signs, the officer's credited testimony established that he had just seen defendant, or a person he reasonably believed to be defendant, go past such a warning sign while riding up an escalator. The record fails to support defendant's assertion that the hearing court made no factual finding in this regard. The fact that the court's decision set forth an alternative basis for denying suppression does not warrant a different conclusion. Once defendant admitted to the officer that he was not a bus passenger, and failed to produce a reliable form of identification, the officer had the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass, resulting in the recovery of drugs.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 10, 2005
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)