| People v McCarley |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07455 [55 AD3d 1396] |
| October 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin L.McCarley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.), rendered April 26,2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]), defendantcontends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized as the result of a traffic stop.Defendant concedes that the police lawfully stopped his vehicle for alleged traffic violations. Hecontends, however, that he produced his driver's license, registration and insurance card at the officer'srequest and answered the officer's initial questions, and that the officer thus lacked a founded suspicionof criminal activity to justify further questioning of defendant in an accusatory manner concerning issuesthat were unrelated to the alleged traffic violations. We reject that contention. The officer's initial requestfor documentation and the officer's initial questions were permissible and reasonable, in furtherance ofthe valid traffic stop (see People v Alexander, 189 AD2d 189, 194 [1993]). The officer'sfurther questions concerning defendant's destination and point of origin were also "basic, nonthreateningquestions" consistent with a request for information supported by an articulable basis, i.e., the validtraffic stop (People v Ocasio, 85 NY2d 982, 985 [1995]; see People v Hollman, 79NY2d 181, 185 [1992]). Upon receiving what the officer determined to be suspicious answers fromdefendant, the officer developed "a 'founded suspicion' of criminal activity" and properly proceeded tothe next level of confrontation, involving " 'invasive questioning' focusing on the 'possible criminality' ofthe subject" (People v Tejeda, 217 AD2d 932, 933 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 908[1995], quoting Hollman, 79 NY2d at 191).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, his "illogical and suspicious responses" to theofficer's inquiries further justified the officer's request to search defendant and the vehicle(Tejeda, 217 AD2d at 933).[*2]
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we reject thecontention of defendant that his consent to the search was involuntary (see generally Schneckloth vBustamonte, 412 US 218, 224-226 [1973]; People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128[1976]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.