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. Ivan ALCIDE, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered February 18, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, 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.
The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree after cocaine was seized from his person during a traffic stop. On appeal, he argues that the court erred in denying suppression of the physical evidence.
The defendant's argument that the traffic stop was pretextual was not raised before the hearing court and is, therefore, not properly before this court on appeal (see, People v. Lebrun, 234 A.D.2d 392, 651 N.Y.S.2d 544). In any event, the stop was not pretextual, but was, rather, permissible based upon the officers' observation of a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (a broken license plate light) (see, People v. Jackson, 241 A.D.2d 557, 661 N.Y.S.2d 247; People v. McCoy, 239 A.D.2d 437, 657 N.Y.S.2d 437; Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89).
Further, the defendant's argument that he was ordered out of his vehicle, rather than that he voluntarily exited the vehicle in order to scrutinize his license plate light, raised an issue of credibility that was resolved against him by the hearing court. We find no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380). In any event, assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was ordered out of the vehicle by the officers, on the facts presented, such an order would have been permissible. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see, People v. Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 545 N.Y.S.2d 90, 543 N.E.2d 733, cert. denied 493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 411, 107 L.Ed.2d 376; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39; People v. Jackson, supra).
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: July 27, 1998
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)