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. Dillon BOX, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), rendered January 30, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Thomas A. Demakos, J.H.O.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement he made to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was seated in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle owned by his mother when police officers seized a gun from the open trunk of the vehicle and subsequently arrested the defendant. The officers saw the gun in the trunk after the officers approached to request information from the codefendant, whose entire upper body had been inside the trunk at the time the officers stopped to inquire. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's ensuing omnibus motion which were to suppress the gun and a subsequent statement the defendant made to law enforcement officials. The defendant thereafter was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm, and he challenges the suppression ruling on appeal.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police officers had an objective, credible reason, although not necessarily indicative of criminality, to approach the vehicle and request information (see People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Jennings, 129 A.D.3d 1103, 1104, 12 N.Y.S.3d 275), after which, it is undisputed, they observed the gun in plain view (see People v. Brown, 96 N.Y.2d 80, 88, 725 N.Y.S.2d 601, 749 N.E.2d 170). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declined to suppress the physical evidence and subsequent statement.
The People's remaining contention is academic, and, in any event, not properly before the Court (see People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663).
ROMAN, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2015–01507
Decided: October 10, 2018
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)