| People v Goodson |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04855 [85 AD3d 1569] |
| June 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v QuincyGoodson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Joseph D. Waldorf of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), renderedSeptember 19, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]), defendant contends that CountyCourt erred in refusing to suppress the handgun found on his person. Defendant correctlyconcedes that the police properly stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger based on atraffic infraction, but he contends that the handgun should have been suppressed because theofficers lacked reasonable suspicion to order him to exit the vehicle or frisk him. We reject thatcontention.
It is well settled that, "out of a concern for safety, 'officers may . . . exercisetheir discretion to require a driver who commits a traffic violation to exit the vehicle eventhough they lack any particularized reason for believing [that] the driverpossesses a weapon' " (People v Robinson, 74 NY2d 773, 774 [1989], cert denied493 US 966 [1989], quoting New York v Class, 475 US 106, 115 [1986])."Inasmuch as the risks in . . . police/civilian vehicle encounters are the samewhether the occupant is a driver or a passenger, '[the] police may [also] order [passengers] out ofan automobile during a stop for a traffic violation' " (id. at 775, quoting Michigan vLong, 463 US 1032, 1047-1048 [1983]). In addition, police officers may frisk passengers ina lawfully stopped vehicle to the extent necessary to guard their safety, provided that they act on" 'reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for [their]own safety' " (People v Jones, 39AD3d 1169, 1170-1171 [2007], quoting People v Torres, 74 NY2d 224, 226 [1989]).Here, the officer observed defendant reach towards his waistband while he was sitting in thevehicle and then quickly pull his hand away. The officer also had been informed that anotherpassenger in the vehicle matched the description of the suspect in a series of recent robberies inthe area where the vehicle was stopped, and the officer observed additional furtive gestures bythat passenger. Thus, "[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances . . . , [weconclude that] there was an ample [*2]measure of reasonablesuspicion necessary to justify" the officer's limited frisk for weapons (People v Benjamin,51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]; see People vFlemming, 59 AD3d 1004 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 816 [2009]; People vCrespo, 292 AD2d 177 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 709 [2002]).Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.