State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: January 21, 2016 106482 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMEL W. RAGHNAL,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 18, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Benjamin K. Bergman, Binghamton, for appellant.

Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Jordan J.

Yorkle of counsel), for respondent. 

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung

County (Hayden, J.), rendered February 4, 2013, convicting

defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of criminal

possession of a weapon in the third degree

On April 28, 2012, police observed a dark-colored Cadillac

that matched the description of a vehicle involved in a nearby

shooting that occurred two days earlier. A license plate check

revealed that the vehicle was registered to defendant and that

there was an active warrant for his arrest. When police observed

the vehicle depart from a curb without using a directional

signal, they effectuated a traffic stop for a violation of the

Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant was asked to step out of the

vehicle and, after being identified as the registered owner, he
-2- 106482 

was placed under arrest. Police subsequently conducted a search

of the vehicle, during the course of which they discovered a

revolver concealed in the trunk. 

Indicted for criminal possession of a weapon in the second

and third degrees, defendant moved to suppress the physical

evidence recovered from the vehicle. Following a hearing, County

Court denied the motion. Defendant thereafter waived his right

to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated

facts, at the conclusion of which he was found guilty of criminal

possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant appeals,

solely challenging the denial of his suppression motion. 

Defendant does not dispute that the initial stop of the

vehicle was proper or that probable cause existed for his arrest. 

His arguments are, instead, directed solely at the propriety of

the search that led to the discovery of the gun. Under the

automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant

requirement, police may search a vehicle "when they have arrested

one of its occupants and there is probable cause to believe that

the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of the crime, a weapon

or some means of escape" (People v Thompson, 106 AD3d 1134, 1135

[2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see

People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; People v Portelli, 116

AD3d 1163, 1164 [2014]). "The search, however, need not be

limited to items related to the crime for which the occupant is

being arrested; it may be instituted when the circumstances

provide probable cause to believe that any crime has been or is

being committed" (People v Thompson, 106 AD3d at 1135 [citation

omitted]; see People v Galak, 81 NY2d at 467-468; People v

Martin, 50 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2008]).

After defendant was placed under arrest, an officer

detected the odor of alcohol on his breath and defendant

acknowledged that he had been drinking. The officer then

reapproached the vehicle, at which point he smelled alcohol

emanating from inside and observed two plastic cups partially

filled with a dark liquid. He also observed, in plain view, a

prescription pill bottle with a partially removed label in the

cargo area of the driver side door and a green leafy substance

appearing to be marihuana on the passenger side floor. In
-3- 106482 

addition, the officer noticed that the plastic molding underneath

the glove compartment area was hanging loosely and appeared to

have been tampered with, and he explained that, from his

experience, this was a common place to secrete contraband. While

defendant invites us to consider each relevant fact or

circumstance in isolation in assessing whether the warrantless

search was proper, the legal conclusion as to whether probable

cause existed "is to be made after considering all of the facts

and circumstances together" (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423

[1985]; see People v Bohacek, 95 AD3d 1592, 1593 [2012]; People v

Fenger, 68 AD3d 1441, 1443 [2009]). Viewed as an integrated

whole, the aforementioned circumstances – together with the fact

that the vehicle matched the description of that involved in a

recent shooting – furnished probable cause to believe that

contraband was in the vehicle and justified the search of all of

its parts, including the trunk (see People v Thompson, 106 AD3d

at 1135-1136; People v Martin, 50 AD3d at 1171; People v Dobere,

298 AD2d 770, 772 [2002]; see generally United States v Ross, 456

US 798, 820-821, 825 [1982]).

Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court