People v Tolentino
2009 NY Slip Op 01341 [59 AD3d 298]
February 24, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
JoseTolentino, Also Known as Jose R. Tolentino, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Kristina Schwarz of counsel), forappellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered September 28,2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of amotor vehicle in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years' probation,unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied, without granting a hearing, defendant's motion to suppressDepartment of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records relating to the suspension of his driver's license.Defendant moved to suppress these records as fruits of an allegedly unlawful vehicular stop,during which the police obtained defendant's pedigree information and thereby obtained hisDMV information through a computer check.

Although a defendant need not establish a privacy interest in an alleged fruit of a preexistingviolation of his or her Fourth Amendment rights, we agree with those courts (see e.g.People v Cobb, 182 Misc 2d 808 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]) that have concludedthat DMV records are not suppressible fruits. "The . . . identity of a defendant. . . is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest" (INS vLopez-Mendoza, 468 US 1032, 1039 [1984]). Thus, "there is no sanction to be applied whenan illegal arrest only leads to discovery of [a person's] identity and that merely leads to theofficial file" (United States v Guzman-Bruno, 27 F3d 420, 422 [9th Cir 1994], certdenied 513 US 975 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Furthermore, the DMVrecords were compiled independently of defendant's arrest (see People v Pleasant, 54NY2d 972, 973-974 [1981], cert denied 455 US [*2]924[1982]; People v Bargas, 101 AD2d 751, 752 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny,Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.