People v Jones (Ronald)

[*1] People v Jones (Ronald) 2010 NY Slip Op 51461(U) [28 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on August 13, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 13, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2008-1249 Q CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ronald Jones, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Suzanne J. Melendez, J., at the suppression hearing; Fernando M. Camacho, J., at trial and sentence), rendered March 6, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. The appeal from the judgment of conviction brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The People charged defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). Defendant moved to suppress
the evidence, a quantity of crack cocaine, arguing that the arresting officer's initial approach to defendant was illegal. The Criminal Court denied the motion.

Upon a review of the hearing evidence, and mindful that the police are entitled to "draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person" (People v Hall, 10 NY3d 303, 311 [2008], quoting United States v Arvizu, 534 US 266, 273 [2002]; see also People v Mothersell, 14 NY3d 358, 366-367 [2010]), we are satisfied that the officer had an "objective credible reason" (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]) to exercise his "fairly broad authority" (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 190 [1992]) to approach defendant to obtain identification or information as to his destination (People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521, 525 [2001]) or conduct (Hollman, 79 NY2d at 190). In any event, we find that when defendant, upon perceiving the officer's approach, discarded the quantity of crack cocaine, later retrieved by the officer, defendant abandoned any privacy interest he may have had in the contraband (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99 [1996]; People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398 [1979]). Consequently, defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining claims of error, which relate to the conduct of the trial, and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 13, 2010