From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1990
159 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 15, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.).


The police initially approached defendant and asked for "papers" when they saw his van was parked illegally next to a fire hydrant. He showed them a registration which they checked to see if the van was stolen. The van was registered to defendant and he was permitted to leave. When the two officers realized they had not seen defendant's driver's license they approached the vehicle a second time and asked the defendant to pull over, and to see his license.

The second stopping of defendant's vehicle was a few feet from where the police originally checked his registration. The defendant stopped the van and got out, leaving his door open.

After stopping the defendant the second time and asking him for his driver's license (which had been suspended since 1978), one of the officers shone his flashlight into the van. He saw the end of a gun sticking out from under the driver's seat, and reached in to obtain the gun.

Defendant sought suppression of the gun as the product of an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and we agree.

A police officer may stop an automobile based upon a reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle have committed a violation of the law, including traffic violations (People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413). When a vehicle has justifiably been stopped, the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that a motorist produce, upon demand of a police officer, the automobile registration, certificate and all other information required concerning his license to operate (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401), and failure to exhibit a valid operator's license to a policeman is presumptive evidence that the motorist is not duly licensed. (People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d, supra, at 416.)

Accordingly, under the circumstances present here, the stop was proper and the gun which was discovered in plain view was not the product of an unlawful search, and the suppression motion was properly denied.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Kassal, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1990
159 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOE PHILLIPS, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 15, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 603

Citing Cases

People v. Hinshaw

78 N.Y.2d 930, 932, 573 N.Y.S.2d 633, 578 N.E.2d 431 [1991] ; People v. Falciglia, 75 N.Y.2d 935, 936–937,…

Tompkins v. City of N.Y.

The statute thus “requires that a motorist produce, upon demand of a police officer, the automobile…