People v Wine

People v Wine 2011 NY Slip Op 07733 Decided on November 3, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 3, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
5939 443/06

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jason Wine, Defendant-Appellant.




Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New
York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel)and Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz, New York (Blair E. Kaminsky of counsel), for
appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sean T.
Masson of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at hearing; James A. Yates, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered March 22, 2007, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Based on the totality of information in their possession (see e.g. People v Williams, 273 AD2d 79 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 940 [2000]), the police had probable cause to arrest defendant and his codefendant for a series of robberies.

Although defendant and the codefendant only matched a general description of the two robbery suspects, and were in a car whose characteristics were somewhat different from the described getaway car, the two men were in possession of two articles of clothing and a bag that precisely matched the same three particularly described items that were featured in reports of the three recent robberies. In addition, the two men gave the police inconsistent and implausible information, and the codefendant behaved in a belligerent manner and appeared to be hiding something either in the glove compartment or on the floor of the car. While these pieces of information had innocent explanations when viewed individually, they added up to probable cause. Accordingly, the police lawfully arrested the two men and conducted a lawful search of the car under the automobile explanation (see People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49, 55 [1982]). [*2]

The record also supports the hearing court's alternative finding that these same circumstances posed an actual and
specific danger to the officers' safety that justified a limited search for weapons (see People v Mundo, 99 NY2d 55 [2002]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 3, 2011

CLERK