| People v Thompson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03131 [106 AD3d 1134] |
| May 2, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony L. Thompson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel),for respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill,J.), rendered December 8, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
A vehicle driven by defendant with two female passengers—one in the frontseat and one in the rear—was stopped by a State Trooper for a suspected violationof the Vehicle and Traffic Law. After ascertaining that defendant did not have a validdriver's license and was the subject of an outstanding bench warrant, the Trooper placedhim under arrest. A subsequent search of the vehicle—including a large brownpurse located therein—resulted in the discovery of a bag of marihuana and a bagof a chunky white substance that appeared to be crack cocaine. Defendant wastransported to the State Police barracks and read his Miranda warnings. Heultimately admitted to the police that the drugs belonged to him.
Defendant was subsequently indicted on charges of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motorvehicle in the second degree. He thereafter moved to suppress the physical evidencerecovered from the vehicle, as well as statements that he made to the police. Following asuppression hearing, County Court denied defendant's motion. Defendant subsequentlypleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Inaccord with the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felonyoffender, to eight years in prison and two [*2]years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, challenging only the denial of hissuppression motion.
We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's challenge to the validity of the traffic stop.A traffic stop is warranted when a police officer observes or reasonably suspects aviolation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413[1975]; People v Kindred,100 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2012]; People v Green, 80 AD3d 1004, 1004-1005 [2011]). Here,according appropriate deference to County Court's determination crediting the Trooper'stestimony that he observed the vehicle's front seat passenger without a seatbelt—aviolation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (3) (see People v Harper, 73 AD3d1389, 1389 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 920 [2010])—we concludethat the initial stop was proper (see People v Green, 80 AD3d at 1005).
Further, there was probable cause for the search of the vehicle and the brown pursefound therein. Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the policemay search an automobile—including containers found inside—when theyhave arrested one of its occupants and there is " 'probable cause to believe that thevehicle contains contraband, evidence of the crime, a weapon or some means of escape' "(People v Martin, 50 AD3d1169, 1170 [2008], quoting People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 678-679[1989]; see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; People v Ellis, 62NY2d 393, 398 [1984]; People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49 [1982]). The search,however, need not be limited to items related to the crime for which the occupant isbeing arrested; it may be instituted when the circumstances provide probable cause tobelieve that any crime has been or is being committed (see People v Galak, 81NY2d at 467; People v Martin, 50 AD3d at 1170).
Here, the Trooper testified that, after he initiated the traffic stop and approached thevehicle from the passenger side, he asked defendant to produce a driver's license andregistration. Defendant handed the Trooper a nondriver identification card and told theTrooper that his driver's license had been suspended. The Trooper observed a largebrown purse at the front passenger's feet and, when he asked the passenger for heridentification, she initially began to pick up the purse, then dropped it and told theTrooper that she did not have identification. At this point, the Trooper asked the frontpassenger to step out of the vehicle, at which time he observed a marihuana stem on theinside of the front passenger door. When he asked the passenger to take the purse withher, she tossed it into the back seat and said that it did not belong to her. Upon inquiry,the front passenger gave the Trooper three different names and told him that she and theother occupants of the vehicle were on their way to a relative's home in the Town ofDannemora, Clinton County.
The Trooper then checked defendant's identification and, upon discovering that hehad nine license suspensions and an outstanding bench warrant, directed defendant toexit the vehicle and asked him to empty his pockets. From his pockets, defendantproduced items that the Trooper described as "blunt wrappers" and a substantial amountof cash. In response to questioning, defendant told the Trooper that he and his passengerswere traveling to a shopping mall, which the Trooper knew to be in the oppositedirection from the direction the vehicle had been traveling. Defendant was then placedunder arrest.
Next, the Trooper questioned the passenger in the back seat of the vehicle. Whenasked for identification, she retrieved it from a small black purse and stated that the largebrown purse did not belong to her. Although she claimed that she and the other twooccupants of the vehicle were going to visit a family member in the Town of SchuylerFalls, Clinton County, they were [*3]not traveling in thatdirection. At this point, the Trooper began his search of the vehicle by, among otherthings, retrieving the brown purse.
The Trooper testified that his search was prompted by his observation of themarihuana stem, the suspicious behavior of the front passenger with respect to the brownpurse, the fact that none of the vehicle's occupants acknowledged ownership of suchpurse and the inconsistent statements made by them regarding their destination. Viewingthese circumstances as an integrated whole, we conclude that the Trooper had probablecause to believe that a crime had been or was being committed, which justified a searchof the vehicle, including the brown purse found therein (see People v Anderson, 104AD3d 968, 970 [2013]). Since we find no error in the search of the vehicle, we alsoreject defendant's claim that the statements he made thereafter should have beensuppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree." As a result, County Court properly denied thesuppression motion.
Peters, P.J., Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.