People v Medina

Annotate this Case
People v Medina 2023 NY Slip Op 05963 Decided on November 21, 2023 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 21, 2023
No. 101 SSM 9

[*1]The People & c., Respondent,


Victor Medina, Appellant.

Submitted by Cliff Gordon, for appellant.

Submitted by Danielle K. Blackaby, for respondent.


The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Following a lawful traffic stop, an officer approached defendant's vehicle and spoke to him through his open driver's side window. The officer observed that defendant was sitting in an unnatural and contorted position, attempting to shield the right side of his body from the officer's view. When the officer asked defendant where he was coming from, defendant provided inconsistent stories.

The issue on appeal, whether the officer's conduct in subsequently requesting consent to search defendant's car conformed with the standards set out in People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210 [1976]), presents a mixed question of law and fact and "our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts' determinations" (People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521, 524 [2001]). County Court found the officer's testimony about defendant's inconsistent statements and behavior credible and sufficient to demonstrate the necessary founded suspicion to request defendant's consent to search the vehicle, and the Appellate Division affirmed (209 AD3d 1059 [3d Dept 2022]). The record supports these holdings (see People v Battaglia, 86 NY2d 755 [1995], citing People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 191-192 [1992]). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.

Decided November 21, 2023

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.