Opinion
391 KA 17–01130
03-23-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. James CATOR, Defendant–Respondent.
VALERIE G. GARDNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PENN YAN (MICHAEL TANTILLO OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT. TIFFANY M. SORGEN, CONFLICT DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
VALERIE G. GARDNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PENN YAN (MICHAEL TANTILLO OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.
TIFFANY M. SORGEN, CONFLICT DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:The People appeal from an order that, inter alia, suppressed physical evidence, as well as statements made by defendant. In February 2016, an Ontario County Sheriff's Deputy drove to defendant's home to discuss a matter unrelated to this case. As the deputy pulled onto defendant's street, he observed an "hysterical" woman waving and pointing at a black sedan that was entering the roadway from a driveway. Without speaking to her, the deputy activated the overhead lights of his patrol vehicle and stopped the black sedan. Its driver, defendant, subsequently failed a field sobriety test and made statements to another officer, and a blood draw indicated that he was intoxicated. Thereafter, defendant was indicted on two counts of aggravated driving while intoxicated ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2–a][a], [b] ), and one count each of driving while intoxicated ( § 1192[3] ) and endangering the welfare of a child ( Penal Law § 260.10[1] ).
Contrary to the People's contention, County Court properly suppressed the physical evidence and statements. The police may stop a vehicle "when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime" ( People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749, 753, 622 N.Y.S.2d 483, 646 N.E.2d 785 [1995], cert denied 516 U.S. 905, 116 S.Ct. 271, 133 L.Ed.2d 192 [1995] ; see People v. Robinson, 122 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 996 N.Y.S.2d 433 [4th Dept. 2014] ). We conclude that the actions of the "hysterical" woman, without more, did not provide the deputy with reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of the vehicle (see People v. Reyes, 69 A.D.3d 523, 526–527, 896 N.Y.S.2d 301 [1st Dept. 2010], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 863, 910 N.Y.S.2d 31, 936 N.E.2d 912 [2010] ; cf. People v. Rosa, 67 A.D.3d 440, 440, 889 N.Y.S.2d 140 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 773, 898 N.Y.S.2d 105, 925 N.E.2d 110 [2010] ; People v. Gardner, 16 A.D.3d 117, 117, 791 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 853, 797 N.Y.S.2d 427, 830 N.E.2d 326 [2005] ). We note that, although the police may also stop a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that its driver committed a traffic violation (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 349, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 [2001] ; People v. East, 119 A.D.3d 1370, 1371, 988 N.Y.S.2d 394 [4th Dept. 2014] ), here, the deputy testified at the suppression hearing that he had not witnessed such a violation before he initiated the stop by activating his overhead lights.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the indictment is dismissed.