| People v Cespedes |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05798 [120 AD3d 585] |
| August 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hipolito Cespedes, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, SholomJ. Twersky, and Ladan F. Stewart of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Chun, J.), rendered May 16, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Brennan, J.), of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branchof his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, consisting of largeamounts of narcotics and currency, that was seized as the result of his arrest. The recordof the suppression hearing revealed that police personnel with extensive training andexperience in observing narcotics transactions, and who were assigned to a "buy and bustoperation" in a drug-prone area, observed a disheveled man standing by the curb, lookingup and down the block. The man then spoke to someone on his cell phone and took somemoney out of his wallet. Minutes later, the defendant drove up in a nonlivery automobile,and the man entered the rear seat of the defendant's vehicle and handed the money to thedefendant. As the defendant drove away, the police followed in their car and observedthe defendant's shoulder dip back as though he was reaching for something. Thedefendant then handed something to the passenger, made a right turn, and stopped in themiddle of the street, where the passenger exited the vehicle and placed something in hispants pocket. The police blocked the defendant's vehicle with their car and detained thedefendant, placing him under arrest after illegal narcotics were recovered from thepassenger. Currency and additional prepackaged bags of narcotics were recovered fromthe defendant and his vehicle.
A forcible stop of a suspect is permissible where police have a reasonable suspicionthat he or she has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (seePeople v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]), and a determination of the proprietyof such action requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances (see generally People vWilliams, 69 AD3d 663, 664 [2010]). Here, according due deference to thehearing court's credibility determinations (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 414[2004]; People v Green, 100AD3d 654, 654-655 [2012]; People v Blinker, 80 AD3d 619, 620 [2011]), we concludethat the suspicious behavior observed by the police officers, including the passenger'sinitial [*2]conduct, his passing of money in apparentexchange for an object, and the short distance the vehicle traveled (cf. People v Loper, 115 AD3d875 [2014]), when viewed in the context of the officers' training and experience andthe drug-prone location where it occurred (see People v Smalls, 111 AD3d 582, 583 [2013]; People v Garcia, 96 AD3d481, 482 [2012]), provided reasonable suspicion that the defendant had engaged inillegal drug activity. Since the defendant raises no additional issue regarding the legalityof his arrest or the admissibility of the physical evidence introduced at his trial, there isno basis to disturb the hearing court's suppression determination.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,85-86 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.