People v. Fahie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fahie

297 A.D.2d 821, 748 N.Y.2d 30, 748 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 821 (People v. Fahie) 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. Fahie, 297 A.D.2d 821, 748 N.Y.2d 30, 748 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The arresting officer testified that he was a six-year veteran of the New York City Police Department, assigned to the Narcotics Division, and that he observed the defendant hand an unidentified woman a zip-lock bag in exchange for money in a drug-prone location. The arresting officer also testified that the defendant ran when the officer approached him. Once the arresting officer detained the defendant, he recovered $137 and a plastic bag containing crack cocaine from the defendant’s person and placed him under arrest.

The Court of Appeals has held that the observation of an exchange of glassine envelopes for money in a known drug-prone location by a “qualified observer” supports a finding of probable cause, and that the exchange of such envelopes is the “hallmark” of a drug transaction (People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 598, 604-605). Further, this Court has also concluded that the exchange of a zip-lock bag for money is the “hallmark” of a drug transaction (see People v Whitney, 224 AD2d 648).

Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances presented herein, the police had a sufficient basis to stop, detain, search, and then arrest the defendant for criminal possession of a controlled substance (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835; People v McRay, supra; People v Whitney, supra). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The arresting officer testified that he was a six-year veteran of the New York City Police Department, assigned to the Narcotics Division, and that he observed the defendant hand an unidentified woman a zip-lock bag in exchange for money in a drug-prone location. The arresting officer also testified that the defendant ran when the officer approached him. Once the arresting officer detained the defendant, he recovered $137 and a plastic bag containing crack cocaine from the defendant’s person and placed him under arrest.

The Court of Appeals has held that the observation of an exchange of glassine envelopes for money in a known drug-prone location by a “qualified observer” supports a finding of probable cause, and that the exchange of such envelopes is the “hallmark” of a drug transaction (People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 598, 604-605). Further, this Court has also concluded that the exchange of a zip-lock bag for money is the “hallmark” of a drug transaction (see People v Whitney, 224 AD2d 648).

Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances presented herein, the police had a sufficient basis to stop, detain, search, and then arrest the defendant for criminal possession of a controlled substance (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835; People v McRay, supra; People v Whitney, supra). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 821, 748 N.Y.2d 30, 748 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fahie-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack