People v. Marte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marte

295 A.D.2d 102, 747 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5876

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 102 (People v. Marte) 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. Marte, 295 A.D.2d 102, 747 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Mogulescu, J., at hearing; Alexander Hunter, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 22, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the crime suspected by the police (see, Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423). The police had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of altered cable television boxes. Police officers investigating a possible burglary of a small grocery store found defendant standing behind the store’s cash register counter, an area accessible only to employees, with the cable boxes in question stacked directly behind him. The store was closed for business and defendant, who identified himself as an employee, was alone in the store. Accordingly, the police had probable cause to believe defendant was in possession of the boxes (see, People v Whitehead, 159 AD2d 741).

[103]*103The police also had probable cause to believe that the cable boxes were contraband. The presence of multiple boxes, not connected to television sets, was highly suspicious. Moreover, the officer testified that one of the boxes appeared, based on his experience, to have been illegally tampered with and the boxes appeared to be for sale in a store clearly having no relationship to any cable television provider. Under all these circumstances, the officer reasonably concluded that these were unlawfully altered boxes that were being used in a cable fraud scheme.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Mogulescu, J., at hearing; Alexander Hunter, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 22, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the crime suspected by the police (see, Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423). The police had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of altered cable television boxes. Police officers investigating a possible burglary of a small grocery store found defendant standing behind the store’s cash register counter, an area accessible only to employees, with the cable boxes in question stacked directly behind him. The store was closed for business and defendant, who identified himself as an employee, was alone in the store. Accordingly, the police had probable cause to believe defendant was in possession of the boxes (see, People v Whitehead, 159 AD2d 741).

[103]*103The police also had probable cause to believe that the cable boxes were contraband. The presence of multiple boxes, not connected to television sets, was highly suspicious. Moreover, the officer testified that one of the boxes appeared, based on his experience, to have been illegally tampered with and the boxes appeared to be for sale in a store clearly having no relationship to any cable television provider. Under all these circumstances, the officer reasonably concluded that these were unlawfully altered boxes that were being used in a cable fraud scheme.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 102, 747 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marte-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack