| People v John |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05203 [119 AD3d 709] |
| July 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dion John, Also Known as Dion T. John,Appellant. |
Robert DiDio, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Jennifer Hagan, and Andrea Alvarez-Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kron, J.), rendered December 20, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal possession ofmarijuana in the fifth degree, and improper equipment of a vehicle (Vehicle and TrafficLaw § 375 [40]), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Modica, J.), of those branches ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and hisstatements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference onappeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Glover, 84 AD3d977, 978 [2011]; People vTandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]). Generally, the decision to stop anautomobile is objectively reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe thata violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law has occurred (see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d447, 450-452 [2013]; People v Wright, 98 NY2d 657, 658-659 [2002]; People v Abraham, 111 AD3d756, 756 [2013]). Here, the record supports the hearing court's determination tocredit a police officer's testimony that he observed that the defendant's vehicle had adefective or inoperable brake light, which justified the stop of the vehicle for a trafficinfraction (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [40] [b]; People v Davis, 103 AD3d810, 811 [2013]; People v Glover, 84 AD3d at 978).
The hearing court also properly found, upon crediting the police officer's testimony,that upon his approach to the defendant's vehicle, he detected the odor of marijuanaemanating from the opened driver's side window, and observed a clear plastic bag in theashtray. In light of these circumstances, the police had probable cause to search thevehicle (see People vCondon, 100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]; People v Hughes, 68 AD3d 894, 895 [2009]; People v Cirigliano, 15 AD3d672, 673 [2005]). Consequently, the hearing court properly denied that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recoveredduring the vehicle search. Additionally, since the search of the defendant's vehicle andhis arrest were lawful, his subsequent statements to the police cannot be deemed the fruitof the poisonous tree subject to the exclusionary rule. [*2]Accordingly, the hearing court also properly denied thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to thepolice (see People vMcClendon, 92 AD3d 959, 960 [2012]; People v George, 78 AD3d 728, 728-729 [2010]; People v Day, 8 AD3d495, 496 [2004]; see generally Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471[1963]). Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.