People v. Cochran

22 A.D.3d 677, 804 N.Y.S.2d 346
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Cochran) 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. Cochran, 22 A.D.3d 677, 804 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered April 7, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Following the concededly lawful stop of the vehicle by a State Trooper and the defendant’s arrest for driving with a suspended license, State Troopers properly impounded the vehicle, as there was no other licensed driver present who could take possession of the car (see People v Figueroa, 6 AD3d 720, 722 [2004]). Moreover, the police were under no obligation to offer the defendant an opportunity to make other provision for the care of the vehicle (see Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367, 373-374 [1987]). The evidence at the suppression hearing was sufficient to establish that the motivation of the State Troopers in conducting the subsequent search was caretaking rather than criminal investigation (cf. People v Acevedo-Sanchez, 212 AD2d 1023 [1995]), [678]*678and that they were acting pursuant to State Police regulations (see People v Galak, 80 NY2d 715 [1993]). Indeed, while still at the scene, the State Troopers filled out a meaningful inventory list, “the hallmark of an inventory search” (People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 252, 256 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Williams
2024 NY Slip Op 50780(U) (Kings Criminal Court, 2024)
People v. Biggs
175 N.Y.S.3d 117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Connell
2020 NY Slip Op 4317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Huddleston
2018 NY Slip Op 2923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Newson
2017 NY Slip Op 7752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Ewart
130 A.D.3d 1062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Taylor
92 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Tandle
71 A.D.3d 1176 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Cooper
48 A.D.3d 1055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Banton
28 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 677, 804 N.Y.S.2d 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cochran-nyappdiv-2005.