People v. Reynolds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reynolds

216 A.D.2d 883, 629 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7190

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 883 (People v. Reynolds) 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. Reynolds, 216 A.D.2d 883, 629 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant contends that the People failed to establish that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger, and that all evidence derived therefrom should have been suppressed.

We agree with the People that defendant, a mere passenger in the vehicle, failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and therefore lacks standing to challenge its search (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 164-166). Defendant was charged in the indictment and bill of particulars with constructive possession of a weapon pursuant to Penal Law § 265.02 (4). The People did not charge defendant with the statutory presumption of possession in Penal Law § 265.15 (3). Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, the automatic standing rule does not apply (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 360-364; People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant contends that the People failed to establish that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger, and that all evidence derived therefrom should have been suppressed.

We agree with the People that defendant, a mere passenger in the vehicle, failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and therefore lacks standing to challenge its search (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 164-166). Defendant was charged in the indictment and bill of particulars with constructive possession of a weapon pursuant to Penal Law § 265.02 (4). The People did not charge defendant with the statutory presumption of possession in Penal Law § 265.15 (3). Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, the automatic standing rule does not apply (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 360-364; People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 883, 629 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reynolds-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack