| People v Mack |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01076 [114 AD3d 1282] |
| February 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Demetrius L. Mack, Appellant. |
—[*1] Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.),rendered December 3, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
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 criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §220.16 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress thephysical evidence found in his vehicle because the police did not have probable cause tosearch the vehicle. Contrary to the People's contention, defendant argued in support ofsuppression that the search was unlawful because the police did not have probable causeand thus preserved his present contention for our review. Nevertheless, we rejectdefendant's contention. The police were entitled to stop defendant's vehicle based on hisfailure to use his turn signal before turning (see People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2013]; seegenerally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a], [b]). Furthermore, the officerwho stopped the vehicle testified at the suppression hearing that he was familiar with theodor of marihuana, and he detected that odor upon reaching the driver's door. "[I]t is wellestablished that '[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by anofficer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constituteprobable cause' " to search a vehicle (Cuffie, 109 AD3d at 1201; see People v Ponzo, 111 AD3d1347, 1347-1348 [2013]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiersand Whalen, JJ.