PEOPLE v. COCHRAN (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered April 7, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Following the concededly lawful stop of the vehicle by a State Trooper and the defendant's arrest for driving with a suspended license, State Troopers properly impounded the vehicle, as there was no other licensed driver present who could take possession of the car (see People v. Figueroa, 6 A.D.3d 720, 722, 776 N.Y.S.2d 574).   Moreover, the police were under no obligation to offer the defendant an opportunity to make other provision for the care of the vehicle (see Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 373-374, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739).   The evidence at the suppression hearing was sufficient to establish that the motivation of the State Troopers in conducting the subsequent search was caretaking rather than criminal investigation (cf. People v. Acevedo-Sanchez, 212 A.D.2d 1023, 623 N.Y.S.2d 452), and that they were acting pursuant to State Police regulations (see People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362).   Indeed, while still at the scene, the State Troopers filled out a meaningful inventory list, “the hallmark of an inventory search” (People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252, 256, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.