People v. Fagan ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015                   105985
    ________________________________
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
    NEW YORK,
    Respondent,
    v                                     MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    FREDERICK A. FAGAN,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   October 22, 2015
    Before:   Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ.
    __________
    Robert A. Gouldin, Oneonta, for appellant.
    Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R.
    Thweatt of counsel), for respondent.
    __________
    Garry, J.
    Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung
    County (Hayden, J.), rendered March 18, 2013, convicting
    defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal
    possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
    In May 2012, a police investigator executing an
    eavesdropping warrant intercepted a phone call placed by
    defendant to a narcotics trafficking suspect. Defendant and the
    trafficking suspect engaged in what the investigator understood
    to be a coded conversation in which the two agreed to meet at a
    barbershop in the City of Elmira, Chemung County so that
    defendant could purchase narcotics from the trafficking suspect.
    The investigator relayed this information to an undercover
    officer, who in turn observed the two men leave the barbershop
    -2-                105985
    together in defendant's car, briefly stop at the trafficking
    suspect's home and then return to the barbershop, where defendant
    dropped off the trafficking suspect. As defendant drove away,
    the investigator contacted a patrol officer and advised that
    defendant was suspected of being in possession of narcotics. The
    patrol officer followed defendant's vehicle and, upon observing
    that the vehicle had inoperable brake lights (see Vehicle and
    Traffic Law § 375 [40] [b]), initiated a traffic stop.
    Meanwhile, the investigator intercepted another phone call from
    the trafficking suspect to defendant in which defendant stated
    that he was being followed by the police and the trafficking
    suspect responded by advising defendant to "put it up, put it
    up." After activating his emergency lights, the officer observed
    that defendant "leaned over on his left leg . . . like he was
    lifting the right side of his body off the ground and his right
    arm . . . appeared to be going behind his back or under his
    body." Defendant thereafter pulled his vehicle to the side of
    the road. Defendant admitted to the officer that his driving
    privileges were suspended, and he was placed under arrest.
    The officer permitted defendant to contact his girlfriend
    so that she could retrieve the vehicle. Upon her failure to
    arrive, the officer obtained defendant's consent to move the
    vehicle and to secure any valuable items that may be inside.
    While doing so, the officer observed a pair of rubber gloves and
    an empty plastic baggie inside the vehicle. Defendant was then
    transported to the police station, where the officer conducted a
    strip search. Defendant removed his clothing but, according to
    the officer, refused to fully comply when he was asked to bend
    over so as to permit a visual inspection of his anal cavity.
    Defendant was then allowed to put some of his clothing back on
    while the officer summoned a lieutenant. The lieutenant engaged
    in a discussion with defendant; thereafter, defendant reached
    into his underwear and surrendered two plastic baggies containing
    cocaine to the police.
    Following these events, defendant was charged in an
    indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in
    the fourth degree stemming from the foregoing events. Defendant
    moved to suppress the cocaine and, following a Mapp hearing,
    County Court denied the motion. Defendant then pleaded guilty to
    -3-                105985
    the crime as charged and was sentenced, as a second felony drug
    offender, to a prison term of four years followed by two years of
    postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant argues that County Court erred in denying his
    motion to suppress the cocaine as it was recovered as the product
    of an unconstitutional search, and, further, that his
    acquiescence in surrendering the drugs to police was rendered
    involuntary by police coercion and overbearing. We disagree. In
    determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct a
    strip search or visual body cavity search, police are permitted
    "to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make
    inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information
    available to them that might well elude an untrained person"
    (People v Hall, 10 NY3d 303, 311 [2008] [internal quotation marks
    and citation omitted], cert denied 
    555 U.S. 938
    [2008]; accord
    People v Cogdell, 126 AD3d 1136, 1138 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d
    1200 [2015]). At the suppression hearing, the patrol officer
    testified that his decision to conduct the strip search was based
    upon the information that he had received from the investigator
    regarding defendant's activities prior to the arrest, defendant's
    record of narcotics arrests, his own observations of defendant
    appearing to reach underneath his body, and the subsequent
    discovery of an empty plastic baggie and rubber gloves in
    defendant's vehicle – items he knew to be associated with drug
    trafficking and the concealment of drugs in a body cavity.
    County Court's credibility determinations are entitled to great
    weight in view of its superior position to observe the testimony
    (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Hurd,
    279 AD2d 892, 895 [2001]), and we find no error in its finding
    that the strip search was sufficiently justified by the requisite
    "specific, articulable factual basis supporting a reasonable
    suspicion to believe [that defendant had] secreted evidence
    inside a body cavity" (People v Hall, 10 NY3d at 311; see People
    v Cogdell, 126 AD3d at 1138-1139; People v Hunter, 73 AD3d 1279,
    1280 [2010]).
    The lieutenant testified regarding his discussion with the
    defendant that ultimately led to defendant's relinquishment of
    the cocaine. In essence, he described that he advised that the
    next step the police would take, if defendant did not cooperate,
    -4-                  105985
    would be to apply for a search warrant. This explanation did not
    rise to coercion (see People v Yuruckso, 297 AD2d 299, 299-300
    [2002]), nor does the record reveal that deception or trickery
    was employed that "was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due
    process" (People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 13 [1980]; accord People v
    Wolfe, 103 AD3d 1031, 1035 [2013] [internal quotation marks and
    citation omitted], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]). Notably, the
    record supports County Court's finding that the promises made by
    the police in an attempt to induce defendant to cooperate –
    including that he would be released that evening – were kept.
    Accordingly, we find that defendant's decision to surrender the
    cocaine to the police was not precipitated by unlawful police
    conduct or coercion, and County Court correctly denied
    defendant's motion to suppress.
    Finally, we reject defendant's contention that his sentence
    was harsh and excessive. At sentencing, defendant's counsel
    argued for a prison term of four years, which was the term
    ultimately imposed by County Court. We further note that, as a
    second felony drug offender, defendant faced a potential maximum
    sentence of eight years (see Penal Law §§ 70.45 [2] [d]; 70.70
    [3] [b] [ii]), and, in view of his criminal history, we discern
    no extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the
    sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Tetreault, 131
    AD3d 1327, 1328 [2015]; People v Charles, 258 AD2d 740, 740-741
    [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 968 [1999]).
    Peters, P.J., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 105985

Judges: Garry

Filed Date: 12/10/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024