From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 2000
275 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

September 29, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Mischief, 4th Degree.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

The contention of defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his van is without merit. The officer was authorized to stop defendant's vehicle based on her receipt of information from the dispatcher that the van had recently been involved in criminal activity at a car wash in Bloomfield ( see generally, People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559, 564). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the police had probable cause to arrest him based on complainant's identification. Finally, defendant's van was properly searched. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement authorizes the search of a vehicle when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of a crime or a weapon ( see, People v. Goss, 204 A.D.2d 984, 985, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 826).


Summaries of

People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 2000
275 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Daniels

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BURNIE DANIELS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 29, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 618

Citing Cases

People v. Wright

We further conclude, however, that the court erred in upholding the warrantless search of the vehicle. "The…

People v. Herndon

We also reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the drugs found in…