People v. Medina

40 N.Y.3d 1022

222 N.E.3d 1115

199 N.Y.S.3d 451

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Victor MEDINA, Appellant.

No. 101 SSM 9

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided November 21, 2023

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

Brian P. Conaty, Acting District Attorney, Monticello (Danielle K. Blackaby of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Following a lawful traffic stop, an officer approached defendant's vehicle and spoke to him through his open driver's side window. The officer observed that defendant was sitting in an unnatural and contorted position, attempting to shield the right side of his body from the officer's view. When the officer asked defendant where he was coming from, defendant provided inconsistent stories.

The issue on appeal, whether the officer's conduct in subsequently requesting consent to search defendant's car conformed with the standards set out in People v. De Bour , 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 (1976), presents a mixed question of law and fact and "our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations" ( People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 524, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329 [2001] ). County Court found the officer's testimony about defendant's inconsistent statements and behavior credible and sufficient to demonstrate the necessary founded suspicion to request defendant's consent to search the vehicle, and the Appellate Division affirmed (209 A.D.3d 1059, 175 N.Y.S.3d 625 [3d Dept. 2022] ). The record supports these holdings (see People v. Battaglia, 86 N.Y.2d 755, 631 N.Y.S.2d 128, 655 N.E.2d 169 [1995], citing People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191–192, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992] ). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11 ), order affirmed, in a memorandum.