| People v Portelli |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02467 [116 AD3d 1163] |
| April 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vAlexander Portelli, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered July 6, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
On July 4, 2009, Robert Haberski—a police officer in the Town of Saugerties,Ulster County—received a tip from a confidential informant that a vehicletraveling in the area had a large quantity of ecstacy in the glove box. After locating thevehicle described by the informant, Haberski observed that the driver was not wearinghis seat belt. Police initiated a traffic stop and defendant, who was driving, was asked toexit the vehicle. After admitting that he had a switchblade in his pants, defendant wasplaced in custody. Haberski then searched the glove box and found a plastic baggycontaining a large quantity of ecstacy and a variety of prescription medications. Thevehicle was impounded and defendant was transported to the police station, where hewas given his Miranda warnings and he provided a statement.
Defendant was subsequently charged by indictment with criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third and fifth degrees and criminal possession of a weapon inthe fourth degree. Defendant moved to suppress, among other things, the evidence foundin the glove box. After a suppression hearing, County Court determined that there wasprobable cause for the police to stop and search the vehicle and denied defendant'smotion to suppress the evidence seized therefrom. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty tocriminal possession of a [*2]controlled substance in thethird degree and was sentenced, in accord with the plea agreement, to four years in prisonplus two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred by denying hismotion to suppress the ecstasy found in the glove box because the vehicle wasimproperly searched. Police may legally stop a vehicle if they have "reasonable suspicionthat [a] defendant has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" (People v Coffey, 107 AD3d1047, 1049 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 [2013]; see People v DeBour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; People v Houghtalen, 89 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2011]).Further, probable cause exists for a traffic stop if an officer observes a defendantcommitting a traffic violation (see People v Thompson, 106 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2013]; People v Horge, 80 AD3d1074, 1074 [2011]). A tip from a confidential informant may provide reasonablesuspicion or probable cause if the People demonstrate the informant's "reliability and thebasis of his or her knowledge" (People v Chisholm, 21 NY3d 990, 994 [2013]; seeSpinelli v United States, 393 US 410, 416 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US108, 114 [1964]; People v Coffey, 107 AD3d at 1049; People v Porter, 101 AD3d44, 46 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1064 [2013]).
Here, Haberski testified at the suppression hearing that he received a tip from aconfidential informant that a vehicle in the area had a large quantity of ecstacy in it. Hethen observed defendant driving a vehicle—which fit the description and was inthe location indicated by the informant—without a seat belt (see Vehicleand Traffic Law § 1229-c [3]). The reliability of the confidential informant wasnot challenged at the hearing and was established through Haberski's testimony that,among other things, the informant had a history of providing reliable information to thepolice. The informant relayed to Haberski his conversation with defendant about thedrugs and his personal observation of the drugs in defendant's glove box and alsoprovided an accurate and detailed description of defendant's vehicle and the location androute it was traveling (see People v Coffey, 107 AD3d at 1049). Accordingappropriate deference to County Court's credibility determinations, we conclude thatHaberski's testimony demonstrated that the police were justified in making the initial stopof defendant's vehicle (see People v Coffey, 107 AD3d at 1049; People vThompson, 106 AD3d at 1135).
Additionally, there was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to theautomobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehiclewhere there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will befound inside (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 466-467 [1993]; People vThompson, 106 AD3d at 1135; People v Boler, 106 AD3d 1119, 1122 [2013]; People v Martin, 50 AD3d1169, 1170 [2008]). Following defendant's arrest, the information furnished by theconfidential informant provided the police with probable cause to believe that there wasa large quantity of ecstasy in the glove box. Inasmuch as the police were authorized toconduct a warrantless search of defendant's vehicle, County Court properly denied hissuppression motion.[FN*]
Peters, P.J., McCarthy and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *: As a result of ourdecision, we need not address defendant's argument that the inventory search of hisvehicle was invalid.