Court Opinion

ID: 9955467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:10:12.11703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:44.079564
License: Public Domain

Matter of Q. P. (2024 NY Slip Op 01765)

Matter of Q. P.

2024 NY Slip Op 01765

Decided on March 28, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: March 28, 2024

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, González, Mendez, Pitt-Burke, JJ. 

Docket No. D5869/21 Appeal No. 1933 Case No. 2023-00523 

[*1]In the Matter of Q. P., A Person Alleged to Be a Juvenile Delinquent, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for respondent.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2022, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress. The police officers lawfully stopped the livery cab in which appellant was a passenger based on probable cause that the driver committed a traffic violation for failing to have properly illuminated license plates (see People v Dula, 198 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1159 [2022], lv denied 37 NY3d 1162 [2022]). The officers approached the cab, observed marijuana in plain view on the lap of one of the passengers and detected the odor of marijuana. Under the prevailing law at the time, the officers had probable cause to search the occupants (see People v Salley, 205 AD3d 651, 652 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1153 [2022]). The recovery of the firearm from appellant during the lawful search was therefore proper.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: March 28, 2024