| People v Garcia |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04412 [96 AD3d 481] |
| June 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Garcia, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nicole Coviello of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at motion to controvertsearch warrant; Herbert I. Altman, J.H.O., at Darden hearing; Ruth Pickholz, J., atMapp/Dunaway/Huntley hearing, plea, and sentencing), rendered June15, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, andsentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violentfelony, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, made on the ground thatthe evidence was the fruit of an unlawful stop. Defendant also challenges the denial ofsuppression of other evidence obtained from his apartment pursuant to a search warrant. In eachinstance, we find no basis for suppression of any evidence.
In a drug-prone location, an officer saw defendant standing on the street, looking up thestreet with a cell phone in his hand. Eventually, a late model BMW with New Hampshire platespulled up and defendant entered it. While defendant and the car's female driver were parked, theofficer saw defendant and the driver make hand motions that reasonably suggested an exchangeof unidentified objects, concealed in closed fists. The driver then tucked into her brassiere theitem that defendant had apparently handed her.
Based on his extensive experience in drug arrests, the officer recognized these actions,viewed as a whole, to form a pattern of suspicious activity indicative of a drug transaction(see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]; People v Bonilla, 81 AD3d 555 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d792 [2011]; People v Smith, 60AD3d 456 [2009] [concealment of unknown object in sock among factors suggesting drugsale], lv denied 12 NY3d 859 [2009]). Accordingly, the police had reasonable suspicionupon which to stop the car in which defendant was a passenger.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to controvert the search warrant. Nothing [*2]in the testimony at either the initial or the reopened Dardenhearing (People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]) provided any basis for suppression, orrequired a further reopening of the hearing (see People v Adrion, 82 NY2d 628, 635[1993]; People v Bradley, 181 AD2d 316, 319 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d760 [1992]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.