People v. Babadzhanov
204 A.D.3d 685 (Second Department 2022)
Appellate Division – Second Department
Decided on April 6, 2022
Contact a New York Criminal Appeals Lawyer
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for suppression of evidence after police searched defendant’s car and trunk during a traffic stop and discovered two bags of marijuana and a loaded firearm.
Holding:
The Appellate Division held that the MRTA does not apply retroactively, the search of defendant’s car was lawful, and the Supreme Court did not err in denying suppression of evidence.
Facts:
Police observed defendant Artur Babadzhanov pull away from a curb without signaling, so they followed for a block and pulled him over. When defendant rolled down the window, Officer Dagnese noticed a strong odor of raw marijuana. Dagnese asked defendant if there was marijuana in the car, and defendant confirmed there was as he opened the center console. Dagnese recovered two bags of marijuana from the console, along with more than $1,000 cash. After removing the marijuana from the console, however, the smell persisted, and Dagnese searched the interior of the car as well as the trunk, from which he recovered a loaded firearm.
Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, among other things. In an omnibus motion defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress the physical evidence. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion and defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
Analysis:
Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement
The warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception, which constitutes that, “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). When probable cause justifies the search of a vehicle, “it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search” (People v. Ellis 62 NY2d 393, 398). The Appellate Division noted that the officer had probable cause to search the car, therefore the search was lawful.
Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act (MRTA)
The MRTA, which became effective March 2021—during defendant’s appeal—legalized the possession of cannabis in specified amounts (Penal Law § 222.05[1], as added by L 2021, ch 92, § 16), and further provided that “no finding or determination of reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed” can be based solely on “the odor of cannabis,” or “the presence of cash or currency in proximity to cannabis” (Penal Law § 222.05[3][a], [b], [c], [e]). Babadzhanov argued that the new statutory provision should be applied retroactively to conclude that the smell of marijuana did not justify a search of the vehicle, including the trunk. But the Appellate Division disagreed, noting that where new statutory provisions “impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed,” there is a presumption against retroactive application to past events (Matter of Regina Metro Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332, 365, 370-371).
The legislative intent of the MRTA is “to regulate, control and tax cannabis” (NY Comm Rep, 2021 NY Senate Bill 854). It also recognized that New York’s “broken, unjust, and outdated” marijuana policies have “thrust thousands of New Yorkers”—disproportionately “black and brown New Yorkers” into the criminal justice system. Indeed, certain MRTA-related statutes and amendments afford retroactive relief by providing for the vacated or reduction of convictions of former marijuana offenses (CPL 440.46-a, 160.50[3][k]; [5]). However, the Legislature did not include any provision for retroactive application of Penal Law § 220.05(3) that would invalidate searches that were then lawful. The order was therefore affirmed.