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. Nathan L. HILL, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered May 7, 2004, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentenced to 2 1/313 to 7 years in prison. Defendant now appeals, arguing that County Court should have granted his motion to suppress the gun. We disagree.
The propriety of encounters initiated by police officers is assessed under the four-tiered analytical framework set forth in People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 [1976] and later reaffirmed in People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 184-185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992]. As relevant here, “[i]t is well settled that when an officer asks an individual to provide identification or destination information during a police-initiated encounter, the request for information implicates the initial tier of De Bour analysis ․ Although police officers have ‘fairly broad authority’ to approach and pose questions, they may not do so on mere ‘whim or caprice’; the request must be based on ‘an articulable reason not necessarily related to criminality’ ” (People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 525, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329 [2001] [citation omitted] ). The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the Troopers had an “objective, credible reason” to request information relating to defendant's identity based upon their observation of him waiting in the driver's seat of a car parked in an unusual manner towards the rear of a convenience store during the late evening hours at a time when there had been a number of robberies at area convenience stores (id. at 525, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329; see People v. Bailey, 204 A.D.2d 751, 753, 611 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1994] ).
The Troopers, who had observed defendant operating the vehicle 15 to 20 minutes earlier, became possessed of a level of suspicion sufficient to permit further inquiry into the validity of defendant's license when he produced only a nondriver identification card and initially denied that he had driven the vehicle (see People v. De Bour, supra at 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; compare People v. Hogencamp, 295 A.D.2d 808, 810, 744 N.Y.S.2d 242 [2002] ). Upon learning that defendant's driving privileges had been suspended, the Troopers had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime (see People v. Ross, 228 A.D.2d 718, 719, 644 N.Y.S.2d 336 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 993, 649 N.Y.S.2d 400, 672 N.E.2d 626 [1996] ). The ensuing frisk of defendant, during which an ammunition clip was discovered in his pocket, was permissible as a search incident to arrest (see People v. Canal, 24 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 805 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2005] ). Further, the discovery of the ammunition clip on defendant's person and defendant's unsolicited statement that there was a gun in the trunk provided justification for the Troopers' search of the vehicle (see People v. Brown, 24 A.D.3d 884, 886, 806 N.Y.S.2d 262 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 832, 814 N.Y.S.2d 80, 847 N.E.2d 377 [2006] ), and in any event the inventory search of the impounded vehicle was both permissible and reasonable (see People v. Hamilton, 22 A.D.3d 879, 880, 802 N.Y.S.2d 549 [2005] ).
Finally, defendant's conviction based upon legally sufficient evidence at trial precludes his argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see People v. Smith, 7 A.D.3d 917, 918, 776 N.Y.S.2d 528 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 681, 784 N.Y.S.2d 20, 817 N.E.2d 838 [2004]; People v. Civitello, 287 A.D.2d 784, 786, 731 N.Y.S.2d 250 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 703, 739 N.Y.S.2d 103, 765 N.E.2d 306 [2002] ). Inasmuch as he failed to raise before County Court the specific contention now advanced before us, defendant's remaining argument relating to the admissibility of the certificate of disposition is unpreserved for our review.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
MERCURE, J.
CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, SPAIN and KANE, JJ., concur.
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: June 08, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)