People v. Lovell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lovell

233 A.D.2d 466, 649 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11927

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 466 (People v. Lovell) 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. Lovell, 233 A.D.2d 466, 649 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered October 19, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first 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.

The defendant arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport on a flight from Trinidad and Tobago. A computer check of the information on the defendant’s passport by an immigration official at the terminal revealed that he had a prior drug conviction. A United States Customs Inspector was alerted and noted that the defendant, who was traveling alone, was wearing loose-fitting clothing, carried only a small hand-held bag and had arrived from a country believed to be a source of illegal drugs. A search of the bag revealed minimal clothing. The defendant was then subjected to a pat-down search during which three packages of cocaine were recovered from his clothing.

We conclude, as did the Supreme Court, that, all of these factors, viewed cumulatively, provided a legitimate basis for the pat-down search (see, People v Luna, 73 NY2d 173; People v Silva, 178 AD2d 446; People v Esposito, 175 AD2d 875). The defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of the search was therefore properly denied. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered October 19, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first 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.

The defendant arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport on a flight from Trinidad and Tobago. A computer check of the information on the defendant’s passport by an immigration official at the terminal revealed that he had a prior drug conviction. A United States Customs Inspector was alerted and noted that the defendant, who was traveling alone, was wearing loose-fitting clothing, carried only a small hand-held bag and had arrived from a country believed to be a source of illegal drugs. A search of the bag revealed minimal clothing. The defendant was then subjected to a pat-down search during which three packages of cocaine were recovered from his clothing.

We conclude, as did the Supreme Court, that, all of these factors, viewed cumulatively, provided a legitimate basis for the pat-down search (see, People v Luna, 73 NY2d 173; People v Silva, 178 AD2d 446; People v Esposito, 175 AD2d 875). The defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of the search was therefore properly denied. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 466, 649 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lovell-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack