| People v Harry |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05255 [63 AD3d 604] |
| June 25, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Travis Harry, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Marc Krupnick of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), renderedFebruary 11, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, toa term of five years, unanimously affirmed.
We find no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its findingthat the police did not conduct a manual body cavity search. Further, we conclude that the visualcavity inspection was conducted with "a specific, articulable factual basis supporting areasonable suspicion to believe the arrestee secreted evidence inside a body cavity" (People vHall, 10 NY3d 303, 311 [2008], cert denied 555 US —, 129 S Ct 159 [2008]).
Prior to arresting defendant, the police had observed him for a period of 30 to 35 minutes,during which time they observed three apparent drug transactions with other individuals. Duringeach of the transactions, defendant was observed "reaching into his pants," after which he wouldmake "hand-to-hand" contact with the individuals.
After defendant was arrested, he was handcuffed behind his back and placed in the policecar. Once he was seated in the car, he was observed "moving around a lot, like sliding up anddown in his seat and making movements with his hands . . . as if he was attemptingto either secrete something in his pants or remove something from his pants." One of thearresting officers testified that from his professional experience he was well aware that thoseinvolved in the drug trade often secreted contraband in their buttocks or groin area.
Thus, since defendant's actions gave the police reasonable suspicion that he may have [*2]been secreting drugs in a body cavity, the visual cavity search wasjustified (see e.g. People v Clayton, 57 AD3d 557, 558-559 [2008]).Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Acosta and Richter, JJ.