People v. Spencer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spencer

2017 NY Slip Op 609, 146 A.D.3d 731, 46 N.Y.S.3d 74

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2017

Docket2953 1142/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 609 (People v. Spencer) 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. Spencer, 2017 NY Slip Op 609, 146 A.D.3d 731, 46 N.Y.S.3d 74 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J., at suppression hearing; Michael Sonberg, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 23, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of tampering with physical evidence, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, identification testimony and one of his statements to the police. An officer with extensive experience in narcotics arrests observed defendant, a known drug dealer, conduct a hand-to-hand exchange of an unidentified object in exchange for currency in a drug-prone location. The officer had also learned from an officer in an observation post that defendant had met with the buyer in a nearby park and directed the buyer to the parking garage where the sale was consummated. *732 Based on the officer’s training and experience, he recognized the overall pattern of behavior as characteristic of a drug transaction, regardless of whether the object was specifically recognizable as drugs or drug packaging (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835, 837 [1997]; People v Selby, 82 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 801 [2011]).

Additionally, there is no basis for disturbing the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J., at suppression hearing; Michael Sonberg, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 23, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of tampering with physical evidence, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, identification testimony and one of his statements to the police. An officer with extensive experience in narcotics arrests observed defendant, a known drug dealer, conduct a hand-to-hand exchange of an unidentified object in exchange for currency in a drug-prone location. The officer had also learned from an officer in an observation post that defendant had met with the buyer in a nearby park and directed the buyer to the parking garage where the sale was consummated. *732 Based on the officer’s training and experience, he recognized the overall pattern of behavior as characteristic of a drug transaction, regardless of whether the object was specifically recognizable as drugs or drug packaging (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835, 837 [1997]; People v Selby, 82 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 801 [2011]).

Additionally, there is no basis for disturbing the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 609, 146 A.D.3d 731, 46 N.Y.S.3d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spencer-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack