april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

excessive. We held the appeal in abeyance and remanded the
matter for a hearing on his motion to suppress physical evidence
(42 AD3d 160). After the hearing on July 26, 2007, the court
denied the motion. The parties have submitted supplemental
briefs concerning the propriety of that determination.
The hearing court credited the police officer’s testimony,
noting that the arresting officers were experienced police who
had made numerous narcotics arrests. The court also noted that
defendant’s vehicle had been used as a “drug courier car”
approximately one prior to this incident. Based on the totality
of the circumstances, including the observations of the exchange
between defendant and the woman in defendant’s vehicle, the court
determined there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest and
denied his motion to suppress the physical evidence seized by the
police. We agree.
To sustain a finding of probable cause to arrest, the
evidence must show that the police possessed of information that
would lead a reasonable person to conclude it was more probable
than not that a crime had been committed, and, that the person
being arrested defendant was the perpetrator (People v Radoncic,
239 AD2d 176, 179 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 897 [1997]).
Although the arresting officers here were assigned at that time
to the anti-crime unit, two of them were highly experienced
narcotics officers, with between 250-300 and 300-400 narcotics
46