People v. Chelenza

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. O'Hanlon

    5 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 12 times

    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [i]). County Court properly determined that the statement of defendant to the police officer at the hospital prior to his arrest was elicited in the course of the officer's investigation of the accident and was not the product of a custodial interrogation ( see People v. Atwood, 2 A.D.3d 1331; People v. Bongiorno, 243 A.D.2d 719, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 889; People v. Bowen, 229 A.D.2d 954, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1019). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated based on his slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol on his breath, his admission that he had been drinking and his inability to pass sobriety tests ( see People v. Chelenza, 303 A.D.2d 991, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 537). Finally, the evidence at the suppression hearing supports the court's determination that defendant's consent to submit to the blood test was voluntary ( see People v. Gaffney, 299 A.D.2d 922, 923, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 582).

  2. People v. Kennedy

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 30246 (N.Y. City Ct. 2011)

    9. Thereafter, based upon Deputy Avard's initial observations, and defendant's inability to perform several field sobriety tests, and the fact that the Alco-Sensor test was positive for the presence of alcohol, there was probable cause to believe that defendant was operating her vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ( People v Chelenza, 303 AD2d 991 [4th Dept. 2003]; People v Sarfaty, 291 AD2d 889 [4th Dept. 2002]; People v Welch, 289 AD2d 1021 [4th Dept. 2001]; People v D'Augustino, 272 AD2d 914 [4th Dept. 2000], lv. denied 95 NY2d 851; People v Schroeder, 229 AD2d 917 [4th Dept. 1996]). 10. Deputy Avard testified that after he concluded that defendant was intoxicated he placed her under arrest and advised her of her rights pursuant to Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, and also advised her of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test.