Summary
In Ruiz, the defendant's vehicle was parked at a fire hydrant and the police did not observe any passengers being discharged and thus the police had objective, credible reason for approaching the vehicle.
Summary of this case from People v. CeballosOpinion
2012-11-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilson RUIZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven Berko of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi–Levi of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven Berko of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi–Levi of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., SAXE, CATTERSON, ACOSTA, GISCHE, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J. at suppression motion; Renee A. White, J. at plea; Michael R. Sonberg, J. at sentencing), rendered July 14, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. When the police approached the parked car in which defendant was sitting next to the driver, this did not constitute a seizure, even if the police car blocked the parked car ( see People v. Thomas, 19 A.D.3d 32, 35–37, 792 N.Y.S.2d 472 [1st Dept.2005],lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 795, 801 N.Y.S.2d 816, 835 N.E.2d 676 [2005] ).
The police had an objective, credible reason for approaching the car ( see id. at 37, 792 N.Y.S.2d 472), which was parked at a fire hydrant, and the police did not observe anything to indicate that any passengers were being discharged. “[A]ny reasonable person would understand that, for obvious reasons of public safety, stopping one's car beside a hydrant invites the attention of law enforcement” ( id. at 39, 792 N.Y.S.2d 472).
Furthermore, the police also observed a pattern of suspicious actions that at least suggested the possibility of a drug transaction ( see generally People v. Jones, 90 N.Y.2d 835, 660 N.Y.S.2d 549, 683 N.E.2d 14 [1997] ). These indicia, when viewed collectively, provided, at a minimum, an independent basis for a Level I approach to request information. The officer's lawful approach led to an observation of drugs in plain view, which provided probable cause to arrest defendant.