From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lumpkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1990
157 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 22, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing was sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause existed for the arrest of the defendant and the subsequent search of the vehicle (see, People v. Hunter, 55 N.Y.2d 930; People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413). The car was being operated in an extremely erratic manner and a radio check of the license plates revealed that they did not belong to the car operated by the defendant. As such, the Troopers were justified in stopping the vehicle and, after one of the Troopers saw a vial containing a white powder residue on the front seat, probable cause existed for the defendant's arrest.

We have examined the defendant's contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief and conclude that there was no violation of the rule promulgated in People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) and codified in CPL 240.45 (1). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lumpkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1990
157 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Lumpkins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVEN LUMPKINS…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 406

Citing Cases

People v. Miller

That statement negated any inference that defendant possessed a permit for such fireworks. Thus, the officer…

People v. Cooper

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that, based on his experience, he recognized the baggie as a…