| People v Tardi |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07880 [122 AD3d 1337] |
| November 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vWilson J. Tardi, Appellant. |
Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.),rendered December 2, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and petit larceny.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25), defendant contends that County Courterred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle because his vehiclewas towed for being illegally parked and the search thus was unconstitutional. Defendantfailed to preserve that contention for our review "inasmuch as defendant failed to raise iteither in his motion papers or before the suppression court" (People v Fuentes, 52 AD3d1297, 1298 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 736 [2008]; see People v Facen, 117 AD3d1463, 1464 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1020 [2014]). In any event, thatcontention is without merit, as is defendant's contention that the court also erred inrefusing to suppress the evidence seized during the search on the grounds that theCheektowaga Police Department's written policy on inventory searches isunconstitutional and the police officers acted improperly when they impounded andtowed his car.
The police officers arrested defendant for stealing property from a Target store. Afterthe arrest, store security personnel informed the officers that they had observeddefendant, who was known to them from prior thefts, drive the vehicle to the store, andthat he was the sole occupant of the vehicle. In addition, store personnel indicated thatthey wanted the vehicle removed from the store's parking lot. The officers, acting inaccordance with that indication and pursuant to a written Cheektowaga PoliceDepartment policy, impounded the vehicle and performed an inventory search of itscontents prior to towing it away. A handgun was found in the vehicle during thatsearch.
It is well settled that "[w]hen the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police mayimpound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to 'reasonablepolice regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith' "(People v Walker, 20 NY3d122, 125 [2012], quoting Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367, 374 [1987]).Thus, "[h]aving arrested the defendant [in] a public [parking lot], the officers werethereafter entitled to impound the vehicle" (People v Gallego, 155 AD2d 687,689 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 919 [1990]; see People v Walker, 267AD2d 994, 994-995 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 953 [2000]). Furthermore, "[i]tis settled law that the police may search an impounded vehicle to inventory its contents"(People v Gonzalez, 62 NY2d 386, 388 [1984]). "Such searches, conducted asroutine procedures, are permitted to protect an owner's property while it remains in policecustody, to protect the police against false claims for missing property and to protect thepolice from potential danger" (id. at 388-389). Here, the police officers properlyimpounded the vehicle that defendant drove to the scene of the crime and performed aninventory search of that vehicle pursuant to a reasonable Cheektowaga PoliceDepartment [*2]procedure, during which they discoveredthe handgun. Consequently, the court properly refused to suppress the evidence seizedduring that inventory search.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions regarding the search andconclude that they are without merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Lindleyand Whalen, JJ.