| People v Contant |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09146 [90 AD3d 779] |
| December 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v IsanContant, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.),rendered October 3, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressphysical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
According to the evidence adduced at a suppression hearing, the defendant was a passengerin a vehicle that was stopped for violating several provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.Based on a state trooper's hearing testimony, the County Court found that the trooper, uponapproaching the vehicle, detected the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Thedriver, who failed a field sobriety test, admitted that he and the occupants of the vehicle hadsmoked marijuana earlier that night. After the occupants had been removed from the vehicle, thetrooper observed a bulge in the defendant's groin area. The trooper lifted the defendant's shirt,unbuckled his pants, observed a clear plastic bag, reached into his underwear, and retrieved theplastic bag, which contained cocaine and marijuana.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trooper was not limited to conducting a protectivepat-down search of the defendant for a weapon once he was removed from the vehicle. Thetrooper's detection of the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, the driver's failedsobriety test, and the driver's statement that the occupants had smoked marijuana earlier in thenight provided probable cause to search the defendant's person for drugs (see People v Black, 59 AD3d1050, 1051 [2009]; People vBadger, 52 AD3d 231, 232 [2008]; People v Feili, 27 AD3d 318, 319 [2006]; People vTurchio, 244 AD2d 366, 367 [1997]; People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260, 261-262[1974], affd 36 NY2d 971 [1975]), including the bulge in his groin area (see People v Placek, 58 AD3d538, 539 [2009]; People vButler, 27 AD3d 365, 369 [2006]; People v Brown, 24 AD3d 565, 566 [2005]). Accordingly, theCounty Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress physical evidence. Mastro, A.P.J., Hall, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.