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. Johannes GONZALEZ, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered June 12, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of marijuana 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.
Police Officer Stephen Smith's decision to stop the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger was justified by his observation that the driver had committed a traffic infraction (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 351-353, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638; People v. Romeo, 15 A.D.3d 420, 789 N.Y.S.2d 537). At the suppression hearing, the defendant failed to carry his burden of establishing his standing to contest the search of the lawfully-stopped vehicle (see People v. Tejada, 81 N.Y.2d 861, 597 N.Y.S.2d 626, 613 N.E.2d 532; People v. Ballard, 16 A.D.3d 697, 698, 794 N.Y.S.2d 60; People v. Phillips, 260 A.D.2d 582, 583, 688 N.Y.S.2d 606). In any event, his entirely unprovoked flight, leaving the vehicle and his companions and running off a highway and into the woods, constituted an abandonment of the 11-pound brick of cocaine and other narcotics found in the trunk of the car and undermined any claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy he might otherwise have had (see People v. Byrd, 304 A.D.2d 490, 761 N.Y.S.2d 155; People v. Perez, 301 A.D.2d 434, 435, 755 N.Y.S.2d 23).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
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: January 17, 2006
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)