| People v Lawrence |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 01364 [180 AD3d 1070] |
| February 26, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Damien Lawrence, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Dina Zloczower and White & Case LLP[John H. Chung and Seok Ho (Richard) Kang], of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Eugene J. Dirks of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Stephanie Zaro, J.), rendered June 29, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of aforged instrument in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Steven W. Paynter,J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On May 25, 2015, at approximately 2:00 a.m., the defendant, after having beeninvolved in a motor vehicle accident, was arrested for driving while under the influenceof alcohol. Upon being transported to a police station, the defendant refused to take abreathalyzer test, and he was then transported to the hospital for treatment of a liplaceration. Following the medical treatment, he was transported to a different policestation for completion of the arrest processing. At the front desk of the station, a policeofficer removed everything from the defendant's pockets and then searched his wallet,discovering two credit cards in the defendant's name. The credit cards were later revealedto be forgeries.
The defendant was charged, inter alia, with two counts of criminal possession of aforged instrument in the second degree. In an omnibus motion, the defendant moved,inter alia, to suppress the seized credit cards. Following a suppression hearing, at whichthe defendant argued that the search of his wallet violated the Federal and StateConstitutions because it was neither a lawful search incident to an arrest, a lawfulinventory search, nor a lawful search on consent, the Supreme Court denied that branchof the omnibus motion which was to suppress the credit cards, finding that the search ofthe wallet and seizure of the credit cards was permissible.
Prior to jury selection, the defendant moved to reopen the suppression hearing. Thedefendant asserted that a detective's report supplied to his attorney after the hearingindicating that the detective knew, while the defendant was being treated in the hospital,that he would be charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument, wasinconsistent with the arresting officer's hearing testimony that the credit cards were notdiscovered until the defendant was transported to the second police station to completethe arrest processing. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to reopen thesuppression hearing.
We reject the defendant's contention that the credit cards removed from his walletwere the result of either the search of a closed container without the requisite exigentcircumstances or an improperly executed inventory search. Rather, the facts describe alawful stationhouse inspection of an arrestee's personal effects (see People vPerel, 34 NY2d 462 [1974]; People v Cole, 151 AD3d 662, 663 [2017]; People vTejada, 253 AD2d 832 [1998], affd 93 NY2d 963 [1999]; People vGreenwald, 90 AD2d 668 [1982]). Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court'sdetermination denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress the seized credit cards.
We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendant'smotion to reopen the suppression hearing (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Giler, 148 AD3d1053, 1054 [2017]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, it does not matterwhether his wallet was opened and the forged credit cards were discovered at the policestation or at the hospital. The content of the detective's report does not contain therequisite "additional pertinent facts" to support a reopening of the suppression hearing(CPL 710.40 [4]; see People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 554-555 [1996]). Since thedefendant was under arrest at the police station and at the hospital, the police werecloaked with the authority to search and inventory his immediate personal effects (seePeople v McCoy, 271 AD2d 620 [2000]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, LaSalleand Barros, JJ., concur.