People v. Biggs, 208 A.D.3d 1340

Background

On July 7, 2016 officers in an unmarked car observed a black Nissan with allegedly excessive rear-window tinting and followed it; the solo occupant (Biggs) was stopped and could not produce a license.
While following the Nissan, Officer Sepulveda testified he smelled a strong odor of marijuana and, at the stop, saw "crumbs" he believed were marijuana on the rear floor.
The car was impounded and taken to the precinct; at the precinct Sepulveda conducted an inventory search, observed a crack/crease in the rear of the center console, pried it open and saw marijuana, money and a metal container.
A search warrant was obtained; execution recovered >2 ounces of marijuana, a loaded firearm from the center console, and additional marijuana and $8,000 from the trunk.
Biggs moved to suppress and to controvert the warrant; the suppression motions were denied after hearings. A jury convicted Biggs of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and marijuana counts (the marijuana convictions later became a nullity by operation of law). The Appellate Division affirmed as reviewed.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Biggs’s Argument	Held
Legality of the traffic stop (tint + odor)	Officer reasonably believed tint violated VTL §375 and smelled marijuana; those facts justified the stop	Officer contends Sepulveda’s tint and odor testimony was incredible, tailored, and insufficient to justify the stop	Majority: Stop lawful (credibility credited; tint and marijuana odor justified stop). Dissent: Stop unsupported by record and testimony not credible.
Credibility of Officer Sepulveda	Officer’s testimony credible; hearing court observed and credited him	Testimony was inconsistent, implausible, and contradicted by witness video/testimony	Majority: Credibility findings entitled to weight and not incredible. Dissent: Testimony patently tailored and unworthy of belief.
Lawfulness of impoundment	Vehicle properly impounded (no license/driver) and taken to precinct to seek warrant/inventory	Impoundment was investigative pretext; People failed to prove department policy, public-safety justification, or that standard procedures were followed	Majority: Challenge not preserved in all particulars; court did not reach some arguments and upheld findings. Dissent: People failed to prove lawful impoundment; impoundment was pretextual.
Validity of inventory search and warrant (Franks-type challenge)	Inventory search and subsequent affidavit provided probable cause for warrant; defendant failed to prove that excising inventory-based statements would defeat probable cause	Inventory search was a pretext, not pursuant to standardized procedures; affidavit relied on observations from unlawful search and must be controverted	Majority: Defendant failed to meet burden to controvert warrant (did not show post‑excise insufficiency); denial affirmed. Dissent: Inventory was pretextual, lacking procedures and paperwork; affidavit depended on unlawful search, so evidence should be suppressed.

Key Cases Cited

People v Estrella, 10 N.Y.3d 945 (N.Y. 2008) (officer’s reasonable belief that windows are over‑tinted can justify a stop)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (procedures for contra‑verting warrant affidavits and excising false statements)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (permissibility and purposes of inventory searches of impounded vehicles)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches valid when caretaking, not investigative, and pursuant to standard procedures)
People v Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268 (N.Y. 2013) (inventory searches must not be a ruse to discover evidence of crime)
People v Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252 (N.Y. 2003) (inventory search defined as an effort to catalogue contents)
People v Bacquie, 154 A.D.3d 648 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t) (context for evaluating officer testimony about tinted windows)
People v Tambe, 71 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1988) (standard for the remedy when false statements are shown in a warrant affidavit)