Opinion
2004-1358 OR CR
Decided June 24, 2005.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Justice Court, Town of New Windsor, Orange County (R. Thorpe, J.), dated July 27, 2004, granting defendant's motion to suppress all post-arrest evidence.
Order unanimously reversed on the law, defendant's motion to suppress denied and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.
Before: PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
As relevant to this appeal, defendant was issued two simplified informations which charged him with driving while intoxicated, per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192), and driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). Defendant made a motion which sought, in part, to suppress evidence on the ground that the officers lacked reasonable cause to arrest him. The court, although finding reasonable cause for the arrest, nevertheless, suppressed all post-arrest evidence on the ground that an accident report was never properly admitted into evidence as required by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. At the hearing, the court sustained defendant's objection to the admission of any statement by defendant, other than he was driving his car for failure to disclose same ( see CPL 710.30). However, we note that a CPL 710.30 notice violation does not preclude the People's use of any such statements at a probable cause hearing.
A police officer may arrest a person for a crime when he has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed such crime, whether in his presence or not (CPL 140.10 [b]). Defendant was charged with the crimes of driving while intoxicated, per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192), and driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). Under the circumstances, all that was necessary for the officer to make the arrest was reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the crime charged. Defendant admitted that he was driving when the vehicle was involved in the accident, that he had been drinking and that he had had four "Budweisers." The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from defendant's breath as well as other signs of intoxication. No proof of an accident was necessary as would be the case if defendant were charged with violating section 1192 (1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [a]). Since, as the court noted, there was ample evidence to establish reasonable cause, the order should be reversed, defendant's motion denied and the matter remanded for all further proceedings.