People v. Badger

52 A.D.3d 231, 859 N.Y.S.2d 140
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 231 (People v. Badger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Badger, 52 A.D.3d 231, 859 N.Y.S.2d 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J., at hearing; Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at plea and sentence), rendered October 10, 2006, as amended October 17, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior conviction was a violent felony, to a term of 3½ years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress [232]*232drugs recovered from his person. An experienced narcotics officer saw defendant engage in what reasonably appeared to be a drug transaction, and then drive away. Acting upon a description of defendant and his vehicle transmitted by radio, a field team stopped defendant’s vehicle and apprehended him. The radio communication from the observing officer was, itself, a sufficient basis for a lawful arrest (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416 [1999]; People v Brown, 304 AD2d 321 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 536 [2003]). In addition, one of the apprehending officers detected the distinctive odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle (see People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 284 [1971], cert denied 405 US 1041 [1972]), and this independently established probable cause to search the automobile and its occupants (see People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d 260 [1974], affd 36 NY2d 971 [1975]). The hearing court properly credited an officer’s testimony that he recognized the smell of marijuana.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Torres
2024 NY Slip Op 04442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People v. Ponder
2021 NY Slip Op 02880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Lee
2016 NY Slip Op 7081 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
PeoplevRasul
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Rasul
121 A.D.3d 1413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
CUFFIE, VICTOR, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
People v. Cuffie
109 A.D.3d 1200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Ventura-Almonte
78 A.D.3d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Contant
77 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Smith
66 A.D.2d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Davis
23 Misc. 3d 30 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Black
59 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Devone
57 A.D.3d 1240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Gaines
57 A.D.3d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 231, 859 N.Y.S.2d 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-badger-nyappdiv-2008.