Opinion
Decided November 28, 2000.
Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 7, 2000, which affirmed a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.
At defendant's suppression hearing there was evidence that the defendant was the passenger in an illegally parked car at a rest area on the New York State Thruway. A license plate check revealed that the car was unregistered. In response to police questioning, the defendant, a Buffalo resident, stated that he was coming back from a trip to New York City. He further stated that while in New York City, he bought some clothing which was in the trunk. Defendant could not produce any receipts for the clothing. Thereafter, the police impounded the vehicle and obtained defendant's written and oral consent to conduct a search. A police drug-sniffing dog discovered cocaine in the vehicle. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the cocaine. Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.
The majority at the Appellate Division concluded that there was evidence that the police had an objective, credible reason for approaching the car inasmuch as the car was illegally parked and, thus, the officers were permitted to ask the suspects their names, addresses, points of origin and destination, and the purpose of their trip; a license plate check revealed that the car was unregistered; the fact that the car was unregistered and illegally parked authorized the officers to impound it; the suspects were not detained, but voluntarily accompanied the police to the station; and the cocaine was discovered not during the inventory search, but during a subsequent search conducted pursuant to defendant's voluntary oral and written consent which the officers were entitled to elicit.
Submitted by Stephen Bergstein, for appellant.
Submitted by Donna M. Cathy, for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determinations regarding the scope of the initial stop, the questioning of defendant about the clothing in his trunk, defendant's consent to search the vehicle, the inventory search and the use of a drug-sniffing dog to search the vehicle all involve mixed questions of law and fact. Inasmuch as those determinations are supported by evidence in the record, they are beyond further review by this Court.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.