People v Tarrant
Annotate this CaseDecided on March 5, 2018
City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Miguel Tarrant, Defendant.
17-3090
Westchester County District Attorney
Mount Vernon Branch
Kenneth B. Saltzman, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
22 West First Street, Suite 622
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
Adrian N. Armstrong, J.
The defendant is charged under two dockets with one (1) count of Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree, in violation of PL § 221.15[2]; one (1) count of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana in violation of PL § 221.05; one (1) count of Reckless Endangerment in the Second degree in violation of PL § 120.20; one (1) count of Unlawfully Fleeing a Police Officer in the Third Degree in violation of PL § 270.25; one (1) count of Resisting Arrest in violation of PL § 205.30; one (1) count of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second degree in violation of PL § 195.05; one (1) count of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Second Degree in violation of VTL § 511(2); one (1) count of Driving Through a Stop Sign in violation of VTL § 1172(a); and one (1) count of Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in violation of VTL § 509(1).
Defendant moves to suppress any and all physical evidence seized in this case on the grounds that such evidence was seized in violation of his constitutional rights. In the alternative, defendant requests a hearing to determine the admissibility of such evidence. The People have responded to the defendant's motion with an affirmation in opposition by Patrick A. Macarchuk, Esq., Mount Vernon Bureau Chief in the Westchester County District Attorney's Office. Upon a reading and filing of the motion and opposition papers, and with due deliberation thereon, it is the decision and order of this Court as follows.
Defendant asserts that on November 18, 2017, at approximately 5:12 p.m. he was operating a motor vehicle in the area of South 8th Avenue in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester, State of New York, when he was unlawfully stopped by the police, and certain personal items of his were seized from him by the police. While defendant wasn't arrested on that [*2]date, he was arrested on December 20, 2017, searched and certain items of contraband were seized from him. He contends that the actions of the police were without benefit of a search warrant and without probable cause and reasonable suspicion to believe that he was engaged in any criminal activity. Consequently, defendant argues that all physical evidence seized must be suppressed as the tainted fruit of an unlawful arrest.
In opposition, the People argue that the defendant's motion should be summarily denied for his failure to raise an issue to be determined at a hearing. Contrary to defendant's denial of wrongdoing, the People assert that defendant was observed by a member of the Mount Vernon Police Department (MVPD) unsafely backing up his 1998 Ford motor vehicle bearing Pennsylvania license plate number KHF5013 in the aforementioned location in the city of Mount Vernon. The defendant was directed by Mount Vernon police officers to stop his vehicle, at which point the defendant complied and was approached by members of the MVPD. The defendant provided his drivers license, registration and insurance card for the subject vehicle. A licence check revealed the defendant's license to be suspended or revoked nine (9) times on seven (7) separate dates. The defendant was advised to turn off his vehicle and to exit the vehicle as he was to be placed under arrest for an Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Second degree. The defendant refused to exit the vehicle, and after a brief struggle with the officers, the defendant was able to drive the vehicle away with the police in pursuit. The police eventually called off the chase and the defendant fled away in his vehicle. The police held on to the defendant's driver's license, his registration and his insurance card that he had provided to the police during the initial traffic stop.
On November 20, 2017, Mount Vernon Police Officer Moculski filed various charges against the defendant and applied for an Arrest Warrant. This Court issued an Arrest Warrant for the defendant's arrest the same day.
On December 20, 2017 at approximately 11:48 a.m., the defendant was observed by members of the Mount Vernon Police Department driving the same subject vehicle at the intersection of South 4th Avenue and East 4th Street, in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester. These members of the Mount Vernon Police Department, recognized that the defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant under Docket Number 17-3090.The officers, followed the defendant and at the intersection of South 4th Avenue and East 5th Street, the officers activated the lights and sirens on their unmarked police vehicle and attempted to block the defendant from fleeing. The defendant was able to evade the officers and began to flee in his vehicle. After a brief chase the defendant then lost control of his vehicle and crashed into the rear of a parked SUV on South 4th Avenue near Sandford Blvd. The defendant then exited his vehicle and was chased down near the area of 463 South 4th Avenue. After a brief struggle, the defendant was handcuffed, and a pat down of the defendant revealed a large plastic Ziploc bag on the defendant's person containing twenty-two baggies of marijuana.
A motion to suppress evidence "must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact." (CPL 710.60 [1].) A motion to suppress must be summarily granted where the defendant alleges a legal ground warranting suppression and the People concede the truth of the factual allegations. (CPL 710.60 [2] [a].) A court may summarily deny a motion to suppress if the defendant fails to allege a proper legal basis for suppression or if the "sworn allegations of fact do not as a matter of law support the ground alleged." (CPL 710.60 [3] [*3][b].) "[T]he sufficiency of [the] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) [the] defendant's access to information." (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993].)
However, even if the defendant's factual allegations are deficient, summarily denying a motion to suppress is disfavored. In Mendoza the Court of Appeals explained:
"The CPL does not mandate summary denial of defendant's motion even if the factual allegations are deficient. If the court orders a Huntley or Wade hearing, and defendant's Mapp motion is grounded in the same facts involving the same police witnesses, the court may deem it appropriate in the exercise of discretion to consider the Mapp motion despite a perceived pleading deficiency. Indeed, considerations of judicial economy militate in favor of this procedure; an appellate court might conclude that summary denial of the Mapp motion was improper, requiring the parties and witnesses to reassemble for a new hearing, often months or years later." (82 NY2d at 429-430 [citation omitted].)In the instant matter, defendant was initially stopped by a Mount Vernon Police Officer after allegedly being observed unsafely backing up in his motor vehicle. Defendant was then arrested and charged under a separate docket one month later pursuant to an arrest warrant. Defense counsel submitted an affirmation in support of the motion stating that defendant was lawfully operating his vehicle on November 18, 2017 when he was initially stopped by the Mount Vernon police officers. Counselor also argues that the defendant was unlawfully arrested on December 20, 2017. Defendant's denial of any wrongdoing on the aforementioned dates challenges the facts relied upon by the officers that both stopped him on November 18, 2017, and who arrested him on December 20, 2017, to establish probable cause in both instances. Therefore, this court finds that defendant's moving papers are "minimally sufficient" to warrant a hearing on the issue of suppression (see People v Harris, 160 AD2d 515, 515 [1st Dept 1990].)
Accordingly, defendant's request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is granted on both dockets before the court (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961]; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]).
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: March 5, 2018
Mount Vernon, New York
__________________________
HON. ADRIAN N. ARMSTRONG
City Judge of Mount Vernon
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.
