automobile exception in New York

2025The automobile exception "permits police officers to 'search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there' " ( People v Johnson , 159 AD3d 1382 , 1383 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1083 [2018], quoting People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; see People v Nichols , 175 AD3d 1117 , 1118 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1018 [2019]).

2025The automobile exception "permits police officers to 'search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there' " ( People v Johnson , 159 AD3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1083 [2018], quoting People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; see People v Nichols , 175 AD3d 1117, 1118 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1018 [2019]).

2023Moreover, even if the defendant had [*2]standing, he does not challenge on appeal the court's alternate determination that the search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-681 ).

2023"Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime" ( People v Crum , 219 AD3d 625 , 626 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ).

2022At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the prosecutor did not argue that the pills were seized in the course of a search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Belton , 55 NY2d at 53-55 ).

2022The Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" ( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully sto

2020Viewing the evidence most favorably to the People and affording them all permissible inferences, applying both the automobile presumption and principles of constructive possession, we find that defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence, as is his conviction of the marihuana violation ( see People Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People Henry , 173 AD3d at 1474).

2013Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007] ), we conclude that “the verdict, based on the applicability of the automobile presumption . . . , is not against the weight of the evidence” (People v Wilburn, 50 AD3d 1617, 1618 [2008] , lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]; see People v Dunnigan, 1 AD3d 930 , 931-932 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 627 [2004]; People v Tutt, 194 AD2d 575, 575-576 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 760 [1993]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2025Even if defendant may not have reasonably expected that his consent extended to the locked glove compartment ( see People v Gomez , 5 NY3d 416, 419 [2005]; Florida v Jimeno , 500 US 248, 251-252 [1991]), once the officer observed the gun and smelled gunpowder through a gap in the glove compartment, probable cause was established and the officer could search the locked container under both the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Ellis , 62 NY2d 393, 398 [1984]).

2024Given the existence of probable cause, even if defendant's consent did not extend to a search of the locked glove compartment, the officers were justified in searching it pursuant to the automobile exception ( see People v Ellis , 62 NY2d 393, 397-398 [1984]).

2022Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime ( see California v Carney , 471 US 386, 390-392 ; People v Yancy , 86 NY2d 239, 245-246 ; People v Milerson , 51 NY2d 919 ).

2014Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime (see California v Carney, 471 US 386, 390-392 [1985]; People v Yancy, 86 NY2d 239, 245-246 [1995]; People v Milerson, 51 NY2d 919 [1980]).

2022The hearing court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" [*2]( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the sea

2022The Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" ( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully sto

2019The search that yielded the handgun followed the defendant's valid arrest for possession of an 11-inch knife that the police recovered from the defendant's person ( see People v Nichols , 250 AD2d 370, 371 ), and was based on probable cause and in accordance with the automobile exception ( see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678 ; People v Langen , 60 NY2d 170, 180-181 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 55 ; People v Kimble , 302 AD2d 207, 208 ).

2018We agree with the Supreme Court that the People failed to meet their burden of [*2] establishing that the circumstances presented fell within the narrow automobile exception to the State constitution's warrant requirements ( see NY Const, art I, § 12; People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 ; People v Langen , 60 NY2d 170, 180-181 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-54 ; see also People v Class , 67 NY2d 431, 433 ).

2015Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that “the verdict, based on the applicability of the automobile presumption ... , is not against the weight of the evidence” (People v Campbell, 109 AD3d 1142, 1142 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1039 [2013]).

2015Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that “the verdict, based on the applicability of the automobile presumption ... , is not against the weight of the evidence” (People v Campbell, 109 AD3d 1142, 1142 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1039 [2013]).

2014Additionally, there was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found inside (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 466-467 [1993]; People v Thompson, 106 AD3d at 1135 ; People v Boler, 106 AD3d 1119, 1122 [2013]; People v Martin, 50 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2008]).

2014Additionally, there was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found inside (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 466-467 [1993]; People v Thompson, 106 AD3d at 1135 ; People v Boler, 106 AD3d 1119, 1122 [2013]; People v Martin, 50 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2008]).

2022Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have "probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there" so long as there is "a nexus between the arrest and the probable cause to search" ( People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; see People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).

2022The court correctly applied the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 [1989]; People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).

2019Even assuming that Buckley would have incriminated himself at defendant's trial while criminal charges against him were pending, however, the jury would have been free to reject Buckley's testimony and find, "based upon the automobile presumption, that defendant knowingly possessed" the gun under his seat ( People v Blocker , 132 AD3d 1287 , 1288 [2015] [internal citation omitted], lvs denied 27 NY3d 992 , 1002 [2016]; see People v Lemmons , 40 NY2d 505, 510-512 [1976]; People v Carter , 60 AD3d 1103, 1106 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]).

2013Penal Law § 265.15 (3) states that “[t]he presence in an automobile ... of any . . . defaced rifle or shotgun ... is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or appliance is found.” Known as the automobile presumption, “[t]he statutory presumption establishes a prima facie case against defendant, which presumption he may rebut by offering evidence.” Generally, “the presumption will remain in the case for the jury to weigh even if contrary proof is offered, [but] it may be nullified if the contrary evidence is strong eno

2022Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime ( see California v Carney , 471 US 386, 390-392 ; People v Yancy , 86 NY2d 239, 245-246 ; People v Milerson , 51 NY2d 919 ).

2014Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime (see California v Carney, 471 US 386, 390-392 [1985]; People v Yancy, 86 NY2d 239, 245-246 [1995]; People v Milerson, 51 NY2d 919 [1980]).

2023"Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime" ( People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Babadzhanov , 204 AD3d 685, 686 ).

2022The Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" ( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully sto

2024In order for there to be an "actual and specific danger," there must be a "substantial likelihood of a weapon in the car" ( Mundo , 99 NY2d at 61 [internal citations and quotations omitted]; see People v. Hardee , 30 NY3d 991 [2017](search of the interior of the automobile was justified where there was a substantial likelihood that a weapon was in the vehicle, and the danger to police was actual and specific); see People v. Ramos , 122 AD3d 462 [1st Dept, 2014](reasonable suspicion justified stopping the defendant's vehicle, but the search was not justified under the automobile presumption as

2024In order for there to be an "actual and specific danger," there must be a "substantial likelihood of a weapon in the car" ( Mundo , 99 NY2d at 61 [internal citations and quotations omitted]; see People v. Hardee , 30 NY3d 991 [2017](search of the interior of the automobile was justified where there was a substantial likelihood that a weapon was in the vehicle, and the danger to police was actual and specific); see People v. Ramos , 122 AD3d 462 [1st Dept, 2014](reasonable suspicion justified stopping the defendant's vehicle, but the search was not justified under the automobile presumption as

2022Applicability of automobile exception to the facts adduced at the hearing Nevertheless, the record here does not support the Supreme Court's determination that the automobile exception applied. "[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers' safety has consequently been eliminated" ( People v Mundo , 99 NY2d 55, 58 ; see People v Torres , 74 NY2d 224, 226 ).

2018"The police had information, provided by [an] identified citizen-witness[ ] speaking from personal knowledge," that the person who had shot at the witness had entered the front passenger seat of that specific vehicle with the handgun ( People v Robertson , 109 AD3d 743 , 743 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1090 [2014]; see People v Williams , 301 AD2d 543, 543 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 589 [2003]; cf. People v Torres , 74 NY2d 224, 230-231 [1989]). "[T]he spatial and temporal factors" as well as the description of the specific vehicle and seat occupied by the shooter "provided more

2021Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant "when they have arrested [*3]one of its occupants and there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband [or] evidence of the crime" ( People v Thompson , 106 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 466-467 [1993]).

2016Under 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]).

2019The automobile exception to the warrant requirement is not based solely upon the mobility of vehicles, but also on the "reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile" ( Pennsylvania v Labron , 518 US 938, 940 [1996]; see People v Galak , 81 NY2d at 467 ).

2018We conclude that, contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly deemed the search permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits police officers to "search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there" ( People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678 [1989]; see also Pennsylvania v Labron , 518 US 938, 940 [1996]).

2016In Arizona v Gant ( 556 US 332 [2009]), the Supreme Court held that the police have the authority to search incident to an occupant's recent arrest, under the automobile exception, only 1) when the arrestee is "unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search"; or 2) when the police have reason to believe that "evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle" ( id. at 343 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2016In Arizona v Gant ( 556 US 332 [2009]), the Supreme Court held that the police have the authority to search incident to an occupant's recent arrest, under the automobile exception, only 1) when the arrestee is "unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search"; or 2) when the police have reason to believe that "evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle" ( id. at 343 [internal quotation marks omitted]).