 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VEHICLE TROOPER SUPPRESS DEFENDANT TRAFFIC LAW MOTION MEMORANDUM JUDGE OFFICER SUPPORT VIOLATION PRIMARY MOTIVATION CONVICTION MUFFLER SUZUKI COMPLAINANT FACTS REPORTS RESPONDENT GRAFFEO CONCUR ROSENBLATT WESLEY CIPARICK LEVINE JUDGES SMITH CHIEF JUDGE KAYE THIRD DEPARTMENT SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT REVIEW |
3 No. 82 SSM 12
The People &c.,
Appellant,
v.
Donald W. Wright,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 64
June 4, 2002
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Ted M. Wilson, for appellant.
Submitted by Gregory V. Canale, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant's
motion to suppress denied, and the case remitted to the Appellate
Division for consideration of the facts.
After receiving a tip from an unidentified complainant concerning the
reckless driving of a red Suzuki, with the top down or removed, a
State Trooper immediately commenced a search for the allegedly
offending vehicle. He observed a Suzuki matching the description and,
while following it, ascertained that it had a faulty muffler (see
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(31)). The Trooper then activated his
siren and pulled the vehicle over. Based upon his observations,
defendant's failure to pass sobriety tests and his admission as to
drinking, the Trooper arrested the defendant for driving while
intoxicated. Defendant was ultimately indicted and convicted of felony
driving while intoxicated.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed defendant's judgment of
conviction and granted defendant's suppression motion on the ground
that the Trooper used defendant's traffic infraction as a pretext to
investigate the matter reported by the complainant. Thus, the
Appellate Division considered the Trooper's primary motivation in
concluding that defendant's violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law
could not serve as a valid basis for a traffic stop. However, People v
Robinson (__ NY2d __, 2001 WL 1657207), decided after the Appellate
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
