People v. Hines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawAppeal WaiverSuppressionInventory SearchJudicial Diversionguilty pleaappeal waiversuppression motion

Facts

Police observed defendant handling what an officer, based on specialized training and experience, believed was a marijuana cigarette. The officer also smelled marijuana, and as she approached, she continued to smell it and saw a still-burning marijuana cigarette about one foot from defendant's feet. After defendant's arrest, police searched his backpack pursuant to an inventory procedure. Defendant later sought suppression and judicial diversion.

Issue

Whether defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and therefore barred review of his suppression and judicial diversion claims. Whether, in any event, police had lawful grounds to stop and arrest defendant and whether the backpack search was a valid inventory search.

Rule

An appeal waiver is valid when, under the totality of the circumstances, the record shows that the defendant reviewed and understood the waiver, including through a written waiver confirmed by the court, and the defendant's experience with the criminal justice system may support validity. An officer's trained observation that a person is handling a marijuana cigarette, combined with the odor of marijuana, gives rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a forcible stop, and continued odor plus observation of a still-burning marijuana cigarette near the defendant can supply probable cause to arrest. An inventory search is proper when the credited evidence shows it was properly conducted and its primary objectives were to preserve property and protect police from claims of lost property.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Manhattan, Devin Cole pleaded guilty to a drug offense. He signed a written appeal waiver that specifically listed the claims that would survive the waiver, and the judge confirmed on the record that Devin had reviewed it with counsel and understood it, although the judge did not orally list the surviving claims.

If Devin later seeks appellate review of a suppression ruling, what is the strongest argument that the waiver will be enforced?

Explanation. The governing rule is that appeal-waiver validity is assessed under the totality of the circumstances. A written waiver may support validity even if the court does not orally enumerate surviving claims, so long as the record shows the defendant reviewed the waiver with counsel and understood it. Under that rule, the waiver would likely foreclose appellate review of the suppression ruling. (Derived from People v. Hines (n.d.).)