| People v DiMatteo |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03614 [62 AD3d 418] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnDiMatteo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (David P. Stromes of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered May 23, 2006,convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of six years,unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbingthe court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People vProchilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). On a particularly drug-prone block, an experiencedofficer saw a man come out of a building and walk quickly towards a car driven by defendant,who was the only occupant. Without any exchange of words, the man dropped an unidentified,softball-sized package through the passenger-side window and then ran back into the building asdefendant immediately drove away. The officer testified that he recognized this particular patternas a method of transferring drugs, and that he had often seen it occur in that neighborhood. Thispattern, viewed in light of the officer's expertise, provided probable cause for defendant's arrest(see People v Valentine, 17 NY2d 128, 132 [1966]; People v Ramos, 11 AD3d 286 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d766 [2005]), regardless of the type of packaging employed (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d835 [1997]; People v Schlaich, 218 AD2d 398 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 994[1996]). A combination of factors rendered this conduct inconsistent with an innocuoustransaction, including the haste of the participants, the fact that the package was dropped into thecar rather than handed to its recipient, and the absence of the slightest greeting, acknowledgmentor other conversation.
Since the officer had probable cause to believe that a drug transaction had occurred, he wasentitled, under the automobile exception, to conduct a warrantless search of defendant's vehicleincluding the closed center console (People v Yancy, 86 NY2d 239, 245 [1995]). Therecord also supports the hearing court's alternative finding that the officer had reasonablesuspicion on which to stop the car, and a reasonable basis to fear for his safety justifying a [*2]limited intrusion into the console, which was within defendant'sreach as he sat in the car (see People vGrullon, 44 AD3d 516 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 765 [2008]).Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.