| People v Nobles |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04956 [63 AD3d 528] |
| June 16, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v GregNobles, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Martin J. Foncello of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., at suppression hearing;A. Kirke Bartley, J., at plea and sentence), rendered August 7, 2007, convicting defendant ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3½years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. After observing traffic violations,the police properly stopped the livery cab in which defendant was a passenger. There is no meritto defendant's claim that the hearing evidence failed to establish a lawful stop based on speeding(see People v White, 40 AD3d535 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 883 [2007]); in any event, the stop was also based onfailure to signal lane changes.
As the police stopped the cab, defendant made body movements evincing nervousness, andpushed a bag that he had been carrying on his body away from himself. This provided a foundedsuspicion of criminality justifying the officers' common-law inquiry as to the ownership of thebag (see People v Eure, 46 AD3d386, 387 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 810 [2008]). Defendant's separation of himselffrom the bag was not innocuous, but was a clear signal that he did not want the police toassociate him with the bag's contents.
The hearing court properly concluded that defendant is not entitled to suppression of thepistol the police found in the bag, because defendant abandoned the bag by both divestinghimself of it and disclaiming ownership (see e.g. People v Morales, 243 AD2d391, 392 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 877 [1997]). The record also supports the court'salternate basis for upholding the search of the bag (see People v Mundo, 99 NY2d 55[2002]).
The court properly declined to suppress defendant's initial disclaimer of ownership, hissubsequent spontaneous admission, and his videotaped statement made at the District Attorney'sOffice. There was an additional statement that the People did not intend to introduce at trial andfor which they did not serve CPL 710.30 (1) (a) notice. Even assuming this statement was theproduct of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, the evidence supports thehearing court's finding that defendant's videotaped statement was sufficiently attenuated from theearlier police questioning (see People vPaulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130-134 [2005]).[*2]
We have considered and rejected defendant's remainingarguments. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.