Opinion
03-25-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rogelio MUESES, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Deborah K. Jessey of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Daniel J. Punch of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Deborah K. Jessey of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Daniel J. Punch of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ) and unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant and his vehicle. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the police officers had an objective, credible reason to approach defendant's parked vehicle, which was located in a park known for drugs, prostitution and underage drinking (see People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 984, 629 N.Y.S.2d 161, 652 N.E.2d 907; People v. Cintron, 125 A.D.3d 1333, 1334, 2 N.Y.S.3d 715, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1071, 12 N.Y.S.3d 622, 34 N.E.3d 373). One of the officers testified that he noticed a pile of tobacco next to the driver's door, which in the officer's experience was indicative of marihuana use, and both officers testified that they detected the aroma of marihuana when they got close to the vehicle. The officers were justified in opening the driver's door based upon their observations outside the vehicle and their inability to see into the vehicle's interior (see People v. David L., 56 N.Y.2d 698, 700, 451 N.Y.S.2d 722, 436 N.E.2d 1324, revg. on dissent 81 A.D.2d 893, 895–896, 439 N.Y.S.2d 152, cert. denied 459 U.S. 866, 103 S.Ct. 146, 74 L.Ed.2d 123; People v. Funderbunk, 122 A.D.3d 515, 516, 997 N.Y.S.2d 63, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1201, 16 N.Y.S.3d 524, 37 N.E.3d 1167). The question to defendant whether he had “more weed” was supported by a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity (see People v. Phillips, 46 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 847 N.Y.S.2d 688, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 815, 857 N.Y.S.2d 48, 886 N.E.2d 813). He responded to that question by producing a bag of marihuana and, “[a]lthough defendant was not placed under arrest at the time of the search, we nevertheless conclude that the officer[s] had probable cause to search the vehicle” (People v. Harrington, 30 A.D.3d 1084, 1085, 817 N.Y.S.2d 483, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 848, 823 N.Y.S.2d 778, 857 N.E.2d 73; see People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d 260, 261–262, 351 N.Y.S.2d 26, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 971, 373 N.Y.S.2d 564, 335 N.E.2d 865).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.