People v. Mehia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mehia

249 A.D.2d 567, 672 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4572

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Mehia) 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. Mehia, 249 A.D.2d 567, 672 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered July 11, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Schulman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied his motion to suppress evidence derived from his consent to search the suitcases which he transported from Los Angeles to New York. The record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that Port Authority detectives possessed the “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot” (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223) necessary to exercise the common-law right of inquiry based upon the information received from a Drug Enforcement Agent in Los Angeles, their own observations of the defendant’s behavior upon his arrival in New York, and the defendant’s responses to informational questioning (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185). Accordingly, the defendant’s consent to the detectives’ request to look inside his luggage was not the product of an illegal police inquiry. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, 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 (Kohm, J.), rendered July 11, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Schulman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied his motion to suppress evidence derived from his consent to search the suitcases which he transported from Los Angeles to New York. The record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that Port Authority detectives possessed the “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot” (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223) necessary to exercise the common-law right of inquiry based upon the information received from a Drug Enforcement Agent in Los Angeles, their own observations of the defendant’s behavior upon his arrival in New York, and the defendant’s responses to informational questioning (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185). Accordingly, the defendant’s consent to the detectives’ request to look inside his luggage was not the product of an illegal police inquiry. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 567, 672 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mehia-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack