People v Atwood
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 15, 2004
District Court of Nassau County, First District
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
against
BRIAN ATWOOD, Defendant.
2003NA000820
Lea Ruskin, J.
On May 10, and June 2, 2004, a pre-trial hearing was held in Part 2 of the Nassau County District Court to establish whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant, Brian Atwood, and once he was stopped and frisked whether there was probable cause to arrest him.
Facts
On Jan 10, 2003 at 10:07 p.m. a Nassau County Police Detective, Thomas Conroy, was off-duty, in plain clothes and present at Gino's Pizza on Long Beach Road in Rockville Centre. While eating his pizza, he observed the defendant enter the pizza parlor. He watched as the defendant proceeded to walk back and forth several times between the counter and the door. The detective next observed a vehicle pull up behind the defendant's vehicle parked on the street, and saw a white package thrown from the back of the new vehicle which then continued on its way up Long Beach Road. Det. Conroy then saw the defendant step outside the pizzeria, look around furtively, pick up the white package and place it inside his coat. The defendant then went back into the pizzeria, picked up his pizza and left in his car. Det. Conroy got into his own unmarked car and followed the defendant.
While following the defendant Conroy called a fellow officer from the Rockville Centre Police Department, Det. Sgt. Kevin O'Toole, and conveyed to him his suspicions about the white package and the way it was transferred. Det. Conroy then followed the defendant to the driveway [*2]at his residence in Rockville Centre and pulled in behind him.
Det. Conroy then approached the defendant as he exited his vehicle, frisked him for weapons and found the white envelope. Upon opening the envelope, Det. Conroy discovered a significant amount of U.S. currency, approximately $2,600.00. Shortly thereafter, the Rockville Centre police arrived at the defendant's driveway and found the defendant outside of his vehicle with his driver's door open. Sgt. O'Toole then proceeded to shine a flashlight inside the vehicle, whereupon he recovered several kernels of marijuana from the floor of the car on the driver's side. Once the marijuana was recovered from the car, the police arrested the defendant, impounded the vehicle and found 2 large bundles of cash and a bag containing 8 ounces of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle.
Conclusions of Law
The Court must consider whether Det. Conroy with all his experience and intuition as a narcotics officer might correctly believe that the defendant's pacing in the pizza parlor together with his furtive pick up of the white envelope thrown by a passing vehicle, was both a suspicious transfer, and a manifestation of some kind of criminal act. Certainly, it was not your normal transfer between parties. But it was also not dispositive as to only one explanation and that one a criminal one. The area was not known as a "high drug" area, and the white envelope could possibly have been, as the defendant explained, payment for services rendered by him, either as a D.J. or for a lighting job, as he was employed as both.
Granting, arguendo, that such an unusual way of transferring funds could raise suspicions in a person trained to question such actions, once the police officer frisked the defendant for weapons outside his vehicle, and only found money, was there a reasonable basis for him to even casually visit the inside of the defendant's car? The detective knew and would have conveyed to the Rockville Centre Police whether anyone else was inside the car. Conroy had observed Atwood's car continuously from outside the pizza parlor to the driveway of his home. There was never a mention of another person in the vehicle. Then, once the defendant was frisked and no contraband was found on his person there was no basis for a police officer to search or even "look into" the car. The police couldn't arrest the defendant at that point because there was no basis for an arrest. Even given the fact that the Rockville Centre police had communicated to Det. Conroy that this defendant's name had become "known" to them while conducting a wire tap on drugs, the police had, at this point, no rational basis either to fear for their own safety or that some criminal activity was afoot (People v Torres,, 74 NY2d 224, 226, 544 NYS2d 796, 543 NE2d 61). Once a suspect has been removed from a vehicle and its "grabable" area, then any imminent threat to the officers' safety has been eliminated. Therefore, absent probable cause, as in the instant case, it becomes unlawful for the officer to enter and search the passenger compartment of the vehicle as an untenable invasion of privacy. (People v Carvey, 89 NY2d 707, 657 NYS2d 879, 680 NE2d 150; People v Torres, supra). That is, notwithstanding the surreptitious nature of the envelope drop, reasonable suspicion never ripens into probable cause in the instant case, as there was no illegality found after the "stop and frisk" (People v Abad, 98 [*3]NY2d 12; People v Carrasquillo, 54 NY2d 248).
Once the defendant was found to have a reasonable amount of money and not contraband in the envelope, there is no basis, except suspicion, for the police to go any further. (People v Gerry, 152 AD2d 952, 543 NYS2d 779) They are not permitted, at this point, to conduct a full blown search or even a "look-through" the automobile, because it then becomes a fishing expedition. Their suspicions focused on the contents of the envelope. When that envelope, together with the frisk, offered up no illegality, then "hunches" must be suppressed and the custodial stop aborted.
Consequently, whatever later contraband was found in the impounded vehicle is suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree," causing the action to fail. The case therefore is dismissed.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
So Ordered:
______________________
District Court Judge
Dated:October 15, 2004
cc:Denis Dillon, N.C. District Attorney
Salvatore J. Marinello, PC
LR:kmh
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.
