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. ROGELIO MUESES, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ) and unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant and his vehicle. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the police officers had an objective, credible reason to approach defendant's parked vehicle, which was located in a park known for drugs, prostitution and underage drinking (see People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 984; People v. Cintron, 125 AD3d 1333, 1334, lv denied 25 NY3d 1071). One of the officers testified that he noticed a pile of tobacco next to the driver's door, which in the officer's experience was indicative of marihuana use, and both officers testified that they detected the aroma of marihuana when they got close to the vehicle. The officers were justified in opening the driver's door based upon their observations outside the vehicle and their inability to see into the vehicle's interior (see People v. David L., 56 N.Y.2d 698, 700, revg on dissent 81 A.D.2d 893, 895–896, cert denied 459 U.S. 866; People v. Funderbunk, 122 AD3d 515, 516, lv denied 25 NY3d 1201). The question to defendant whether he had “more weed” was supported by a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity (see People v. Phillips, 46 AD3d 1021, 1023, lv denied 10 NY3d 815). He responded to that question by producing a bag of marihuana and, “[a]lthough defendant was not placed under arrest at the time of the search, we nevertheless conclude that the officer[s] had probable cause to search the vehicle” (People v. Harrington, 30 AD3d 1084, 1085, lv denied 7 NY3d 848; see People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d 260, 261–262, affd 36 N.Y.2d 971).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: KA 14–00411
Decided: March 25, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)