OPINION Defendant Timothy Purvis moves to suppress physical evidence recovered at and after the time of his arrest. The motion is denied.AOn October 24, 2017, defendant’s car was stopped by police officers. Defendant was frisked, and the frisk revealed that he carried a hard object inside his pants, in his groin area. Defendant was arrested, and a package of narcotics was recovered from his pants during a strip search at the precinct. Defendant’s suppression motion challenges the police conduct at each step of the encounter: the car stop, the frisk, the arrest, and the strip search.BAt about 8:00 p.m. on October 24, 2017, the police officers pulled defendant’s car over at the intersection of Broadway and Marcus Garvey Boulevard in Manhattan. Defendant’s car had become stalled in traffic in a crosswalk while turning onto Marcus Garvey Boulevard, and remained in that crosswalk after the traffic light turned red. The officers who stopped the car examined defendant’s documents. The car had been rented by defendant’s mother, but defendant’s name was not listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver. Defendant was arrested. He was frisked at the scene, and that frisk revealed that he carried a hard object in his groin area.Defendant was transported to the 79th precinct. There, in a cell in an area out of public view, defendant was searched by male officers. During the search he was directed to disrobe. He removed his clothes himself. Ultimately, he was obliged to take off his underwear. As he did so, a package of drugs fell to the floor. Thereafter defendant was told to spread his “cheeks,” but a visual inspection revealed no additional evidence. Evidence was also recovered from defendant’s car, some in plain view and some pursuant to an inventory search.There is a backstory. The police were investigating defendant because they believed that he was a part of a narcotics ring — and not a small player. The investigation was focused on low-level dealers who had infested the area around a parking lot near the Sumner Houses in Brooklyn. Surveillance and wiretaps on several phones, including one phone belonging to defendant, had led the police to conclude that defendant supplied drugs to the sellers around the parking lot when their supplies ran low.On the day of defendant’s arrest the police intercepted coded conversations indicating that defendant was about to accept drugs from his own supplier to take to the workers. Delays caused the police to miss his meeting with the supplier, but officers — including the lead case supervisor — arrived as defendant was driving on Broadway from the area in which the meeting had been set. After defendant was observed blocking the crosswalk at Marcus Garvey Boulevard the officers resolved to pull him over. As already noted, the stop resulted in an arrest because defendant was not listed on the rental agreement, and a frisk revealed that he was carrying a hard object in his groin area. And during a strip search that object was discovered to be a package of narcotics.CThe traffic stop was itself certainly legal, for the police observed defendant commit a traffic infraction. A driver may not enter an intersection if there is not adequate room to pass through it. By “blocking the box” defendant was guilty of illegal “spillover.” NYCRR Section 4-07 (b) (2).The arrest for unlawful use of the vehicle, and the appurtenant frisk, are more problematic. The officers may or may not have been mistaken in concluding that one commits Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle when he drives a rented car with the renter’s permission, simply because he is not named on the rental agreement as an authorized driver. Compare People v. Bryant, 77 AD3d 485 (1st Dept 2010); People v. Hale, 130 AD3d 1540 (4th Dept 2015) with In re Londell S., 7 Misc3d 1018 (A), 801 NYS2d 236 (Family Ct Kings Co 2005); People v. Johnson, 71 Misc2d 423 (Criminal Ct Queens Co 1972). Moreover, even if the police lacked probable cause to think defendant was committing Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, the arrest would still have been justified if the officers’ mistake of law was (especially given the conflicting caselaw) reasonable. See People v. Guthrie, 25 NY3d 130 (2015). But this court need not resolve these entertaining issues. There was probable cause to arrest defendant for narcotics crimes even before defendant’s car was pulled over.In that regard, a long-term investigation had quite reasonably caused the lead detective on the case, Detective Scoloveno, to believe that defendant was an important member of a narcotics conspiracy. Long-term surveillance, arrests of drug buyers, and wiretap conversations — including many heard over defendant’s cellphone after a judge concluded that there was probable cause for a warrant — had shown defendant’s involvement. Indeed, defendant’s conversations and conduct on the day of his arrest had been entirely consistent with the information previously known to the police. There was probable cause to stop defendant’s car and arrest him. It did not matter whether there also was a different reason to do that. See People v. Robinson, 97 NY2d 341 (2001).Defendant suggests that the officers who stopped his car, including Detective Scoloveno, had an insufficient basis to believe that he was driving the vehicle, and indeed even in the car. But Detective Scoloveno very credibly testified that he saw defendant driving the car before the stop, and recognized him. Moreover, the detective would not likely have stopped defendant’s car during his drug investigation, one car among many on Broadway, had he not recognized defendant.1 Further, Detective Scoloveno was readily able to recognize defendant. He had spoken to defendant once, face to face, during an earlier car stop. And he had personally conducted “multiple” surveillances during which he had seen defendant. The detective had also seen a number of surveillance photographs of defendant.Simply put, Detective Scoloveno and his team had probable cause to arrest defendant. The car stop was proper. So too was defendant’s frisk, which revealed his secreted package. And all of that amply justified the strip search, which led to the recovery of defendant’s drugs.2In sum, defendant failed to carry his burden of showing that the car stop, the frisk, the arrest, and/or the final search was improper. His motion to suppress is denied.
