Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nicholas Crooks, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-11-13
Citations: 122 A.D.3d 435
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Crooks, Appellant.
Judges: Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick and Gische, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 435–435

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Crooks, Appellant.
[995 NYS2d 73]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J, at motion to controvert search warrant; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at suppression hearing; Melissa C. Jackson, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered December 16, 2013, convicting defendant of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years' probation, unanimously affirmed.
The police action in this case was lawful at all stages. A detective saw defendant, a United Parcel Service employee, taking boxes from a UPS facility and placing them in his privately owned vehicle. Based on reliable information from knowledgeable UPS supervisors (see Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]), including information about UPS policies and defendant's past pattern of behavior, and based on the absence of any other logical explanations for defendant's conduct, the detective objectively (see Devenpeck v Alford, 543 US 146, 153 [2004]) had probable cause to believe either that defendant was stealing the boxes, or that he was picking up a shipment of illegal drugs. Moreover, the police acted reasonably in detaining defendant and moving the boxes to a location where they could be sniffed by a trained dog, resulting in the dog's detection of drugs (see People v Devone, 15 NY3d 106 [2010]; People v Dunn, 77 NY2d 19 [1990], cert denied 501 US 1219 [1991]). The ensuing search warrant was lawfully issued, and it was not tainted by illegal police activity. The discrepancy between the warrant application and the affiant's testimony at a hearing does not require suppression. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick and Gische, JJ.