People v Willis
2009 NY Slip Op 07666 [66 AD3d 926]
October 20, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
David Willis, Appellant.

[*1]Barry E. Warhit, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Bellantoni, J.), rendered May 3, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in thethird degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was lawfully stopped for Vehicle and TrafficLaw infractions. The officer who stopped the vehicle had the discretionary authority to order thedefendant out of the vehicle on that basis alone (see People v Robinson, 74 NY2d 773,774 [1989], cert denied 493 US 966 [1989]; People v Henderson, 26 AD3d 444, 445 [2006]; People v Carr, 24 AD3d 566, 567[2005]; People v Forbes, 283 AD2d 92, 94-95 [2001]). Additionally, upon speaking tothe operator, the officer detected the odor of burning marijuana emanating from the vehicle and,upon inquiry, the defendant admitted to having smoked marijuana earlier that night. Thedefendant was lawfully directed to exit the vehicle (see People v Dugan, 57 AD3d 300 [2008]; People v Sutherland, 40 AD3d890, 891 [2007]; People vBrabham, 13 AD3d 388 [2004]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904 [2004]). As the defendant moved toexit the vehicle, the officer observed the butt of a revolver sticking out of the right front pocketof the defendant's pants. The weapon was lawfully seized and, therefore, that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the weapon was properly denied.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Henry, 52 AD3d 841, 843 [2008]). Mastro, J.P.,Fisher, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.


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.