| People v Mobley |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01816 [48 AD3d 374] |
| February 28, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v DonaldMobley, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Karen M. Kalikow of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), entered on or about June 15,2007, which granted defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and a statement,unanimously affirmed.
The record supports the court's suppression ruling (16 Misc 3d 1106[A], 2007 NY Slip Op51315[U] [2007]). There was no objective, credible reason for the police to approach defendant'scar to request information, since there was nothing suspicious about the presence of defendantand a female passenger in a legally parked car. Although the neighborhood was a high-crime areaknown for narcotics activity and prostitution, there was no sign of sexual or drug-related conduct.Accordingly, the police had no basis to pull their vehicle up to the car, immediately after noticingit, and ask the occupants the reason for their presence (see People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d521, 526-527 [2001]). In any event, even if the first request for information was justified, oncethe police questioned the occupants of the car and found nothing to create any degree ofsuspicion, the police clearly had no basis for their second approach and inquiry, made on foot.Moreover, in his confusing and contradictory testimony, the officer never explained why therewere two requests for information, and we reject the People's argument that the second approachwas merely a continuation of the first. Furthermore, we conclude that the ultimate discovery of afirearm in the car was the direct result of the second inquiry, and cannot accurately becharacterized as a mere observation, from a lawful vantage point, of contraband in plain view.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ. [See 16 Misc3d 1106(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51315(U).]