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. Derrick LYNAH, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered November 29, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ). At a particularly drug-prone location, an officer recognized defendant from a recent investigation into a possible drug transaction. Defendant was holding a plastic bag and counting something. When defendant saw the officer, he pushed the bag up his sleeve, and when the officer approached, defendant secreted the bag in his pants, apparently placing it in his buttocks. This unusual and furtive behavior was highly suspicious (see generally People v. Jones, 90 N.Y.2d 835, 660 N.Y.S.2d 549, 683 N.E.2d 14 [1997] ), particularly since defendant's behavior on the prior occasion had similarities to this incident, and the police accordingly had reasonable suspicion justifying a forcible stop and detention. When defendant told the officer that he had drugs in his buttocks, this provided probable cause for his arrest (see People v. Hall, 10 N.Y.3d 303, 856 N.Y.S.2d 540, 886 N.E.2d 162 [2008], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 159, 172 L.Ed.2d 241 [2008] ).
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the evidence failed to establish a valid consent to the removal by police of drugs from his buttocks area, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.
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.
Docket No: 1417 /06, 4656
Decided: November 25, 2008
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)