People v. Banchon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Banchon

126 A.D.3d 462, 2 N.Y.S.3d 785

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 10, 2015

Docket14064 4230/11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 462 (People v. Banchon) 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. Banchon, 126 A.D.3d 462, 2 N.Y.S.3d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered June 26, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record establishes that drugs were recovered from defendant as a result of a valid search incident to an arrest based on probable cause, which existed prior to any seizure. Defendant was seen holding an item that the officer recognized as a type of drug packaging (see e.g. People v Ramos, 11 AD3d 286 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 766 [2005]; People v Alvarez, 11 AD3d 217 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 740 [2004]). Additionally, defendant and another man were seen engaged in a pattern of suspicious conduct, both before and after the approach of the police, that led an officer to a reasonable conclusion, based on his experience and training, that defendant had been in the process of exchanging a package of drugs for money (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.R, Renwick, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered June 26, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record establishes that drugs were recovered from defendant as a result of a valid search incident to an arrest based on probable cause, which existed prior to any seizure. Defendant was seen holding an item that the officer recognized as a type of drug packaging (see e.g. People v Ramos, 11 AD3d 286 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 766 [2005]; People v Alvarez, 11 AD3d 217 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 740 [2004]). Additionally, defendant and another man were seen engaged in a pattern of suspicious conduct, both before and after the approach of the police, that led an officer to a reasonable conclusion, based on his experience and training, that defendant had been in the process of exchanging a package of drugs for money (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.R, Renwick, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 462, 2 N.Y.S.3d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-banchon-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack