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, etc., Respondent, v. Teofilo TAVAREZ, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, possession of burglar's tools, petit larceny, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to signal, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dillon, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the traffic stop was pretextual is without merit. The stop was based upon a police officer's observation of the defendant making a left turn without signalling (see, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89; People v. Henry, 258 A.D.2d 473, 685 N.Y.S.2d 100; People v. Dougherty, 251 A.D.2d 344, 673 N.Y.S.2d 742; People v. Alcide, 252 A.D.2d 591, 676 N.Y.S.2d 216). Upon learning that the defendant was driving with a suspended license, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1]; Penal Law § 10.00[4]; People v. Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631, 635 N.Y.S.2d 155, 658 N.E.2d 1028). Suppression of the burglar's tools recovered from the defendant's pants pocket was not warranted as the tools were recovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest (see, People v. Lynch, 254 A.D.2d 503, 680 N.Y.S.2d 112; People v. Valentine, 220 A.D.2d 708, 632 N.Y.S.2d 663).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly disallowed the defense counsel's challenge for cause regarding two prospective jurors (see, People v. Archer, 210 A.D.2d 241, 619 N.Y.S.2d 738; People v. Pagan, 191 A.D.2d 651, 595 N.Y.S.2d 486; People v. Whitmore, 177 A.D.2d 525, 575 N.Y.S.2d 914). The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either without merit or do not warrant reversal (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Ward, 260 A.D.2d 585, 688 N.Y.S.2d 631).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: November 06, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)