People v. Chatelain

65 A.D.3d 930, 886 N.Y.S.2d 679
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 22, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 930 (People v. Chatelain) 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. Chatelain, 65 A.D.3d 930, 886 N.Y.S.2d 679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J., at suppression hearing; John Cataldo, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered January 4, 2007, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of JVa to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s arguments that the arresting officer should have issued a summons rather than arresting defendant and conducting a search incident to that arrest are unpreserved (see People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011 [1976]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Having observed defendant drive a vehicle with a suspended license (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1]; § 511 [1] [a]), the officer had probable cause to arrest him, and we conclude that issuance of a summons would not have been a practicable alternative to arrest (see People v Troiano, 35 NY2d 476, 478 [1974]; People v Peterson, 245 AD2d 815, 817 [1997]).

Defendant’s contention that the police improperly searched a closed bag contained in defendant’s pants at the time of his arrest is also unpreserved (see People v Colon, 46 AD3d 260, 263 [2007]), and we likewise decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject defendant’s claim on the merits since the bag was in his grabbable area and the circumstances justified inspection of the bag’s contents (see People v Smith, 59 NY2d 454 [1983]; People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 946 [1998]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

United States v. White
298 F. Supp. 3d 451 (E.D. New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A.D.3d 930, 886 N.Y.S.2d 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chatelain-nyappdiv-2009.