People v Parks
Annotate this CaseDecided on February 25, 2005
County Court, Monroe County
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
against
Cory Nelson Parks, Defendant.
2004-0731
MICHAEL C. GREEN, ESQ.
Monroe County District Attorney
RAYMOND G. BENITEZ, ESQ., Of Counsel
Attorney for People
THOMAS J. COCUZZI, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant
Richard A. Keenan, J.
Defendant has moved to suppress certain evidence which he contends was unlawfully obtained by police. An initial pretrial hearing, at which the only witnesses were police officers presented by the People, was held but on defendant's application the hearing was subsequently reopened, during which one of the original police witnesses as well as defendant testified.
On the morning of Tuesday, June 29, 2004 at around 11:30 a.m. New York State Trooper Daniel Flanigen and Rochester Police Officer David DiFante were on uniformed patrol in the City of Rochester as part of a special operation when defendant's vehicle came to their attention while stopped at an intersection. According to Trooper Flanigen, defendant was talking on a cell phone. Trooper Flanigen, who was driving, turned around to follow defendant and eventually pulled him over. Defendant, the only occupant of the vehicle, produced a New York State driver's license and when Trooper Flanigen checked defendant's license via radio he was advised the license was suspended out of the Town of Greece. Defendant subsequently told Trooper Flanigen that he had taken care of the Greece suspension and he also produced documentation showing a suspension "lift" from the Town of Gates. According to Trooper Flanigen it was common for the Department of Motor Vehicle's computer records not to be "caught up" with suspension lifts because such are not always promptly reported to DMV by traffic courts. It was the Trooper's policy to assume the records were accurate unless the driver produced documentation evidencing, e.g., a suspension lift. In this instance Trooper Flanigen did not recall what defendant's response was when he was asked for proof of the Greece suspension lift. Defendant's official DMV driving abstract, showing a "clear" [*2]of the Greece suspension on June 21, 2004 (eights days prior to the stop), was received in evidence (Defendant's Exhibit B) and provided to Trooper Flanigen during his testimony. According to the Trooper this entry meant that defendant had cleared the suspension and "his license should be good."
Based on the information he received at the time of the stop Trooper Flanigen arrested defendant for driving with a suspended license. Pursuant to RPD policy then Officer DiFante conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle since it was going to be towed. Officer DiFante located a handgun "in the console" as well as some drug paraphernalia (including scales and packaging materials) in the trunk.
Following the completion of the hearing defendant moved to reopen the hearing on the basis of discovery materials which had since been provided to him by the People. Specifically, photographs of the interior of defendant's vehicle indicated that the center console had actually been removed, exposing the handgun on the floor of the vehicle. The hearing was thus reopened and Officer DiFante explained that there was a flexible "boot" surrounding the emergency brake lever in the console, that the boot was not attached in place and thus upon moving the boot a portion of the interior or underside of the console was exposed and that when he looked into this exposed area he saw the barrel of the handgun. The console was ultimately removed then to get at the gun on the floor beneath the console.
Defendant also testified at the reopened hearing, admitting that he had hidden the gun under the console and explaining that the console, which was held in place by some screws, had to be removed and replaced in order to hide the gun. Defendant also claimed that at the time he was stopped by police the emergency brake boot was "snapped" in place and thus no part of the underside of the console was visible, contrary to Officer DiFante's account.
The Court need not reach the issue regarding the inventory search itself raised by the reopening of the hearing since on this record the arrest of defendant cannot be sustained, and it was only defendant's arrest which necessitated the inventory search. Defendant was arrested for driving without a license but it was established at the hearing that the information provided to the police at the time of the stop was inaccurate; while Trooper Flanigen was advised by radio that defendant's license was suspended out of the Town of Greece defendant's own driving abstract showed that in fact the Greece suspension had been cleared some eight days earlier. Indeed, Trooper Flanigen candidly admitted that it was not uncommon for the DMV records used by police not to be "caught up" due to reporting delays by traffic courts. Further, in reviewing defendant's driving abstract at the hearing the Trooper acknowledged that such indicated that defendant had indeed cleared the Greece suspension and that "his license should be good."
Under the circumstances here the Court believes suppression is dictated by People v Jennings (54 NY2d 518 [1981]) and similar cases. Without attempting to establish a blanket rule for police reliance on DMV records in all instances, it is noteworthy here that not only did defendant advise police that his license was no longer suspended but that the stop here occurred during normal business/working hours on a weekday such that it presumably would have been relatively simple for police to have checked with the relevant traffic court (which was in fact a local court within the same county).
Defendant's motion to suppress is therefore granted.
This constitutes the Order of the Court.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2005 at Rochester, New York [*3]
__________________________________
HON. RICHARD A. KEENAN
MONROE COUNTY COURT JUDGE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
