Opinion
Docket No. 21100072
09-22-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. William H. DICKE, Defendant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie (Jennifer L. Fluck of counsel), for plaintiff. Ryanne G. Konan, Wappingers Falls, for defendant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie (Jennifer L. Fluck of counsel), for plaintiff.
Ryanne G. Konan, Wappingers Falls, for defendant.
Darren H. Fairlie, J.
Procedural History
By Notice of Motion dated April 25, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instruments against him, which charged violations of VTL § 401 -1a (Unregistered Motor Vehicle), VTL § 511 -3(a)(i) (Aggravated Unlicensed Operation — 1st Degree), VTL § 1192(3) (Driving While Intoxicated) and PL § 220.06 (Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance — 5th Degree), for lack of probable cause to effectuate the subject traffic stop in the first instance. In the alternative, Defendant requested a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to suppress the statements and physical evidence obtained from the Defendant following the allegedly unlawful traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The People submitted an Affirmation in Answer to Defendant's Motion dated June 16, 2022.
At the July 21, 2022 appearance in this matter, this Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss due to Defendant's failure to establish lack of probable cause based upon the papers presented or upon a deficiency in the accusatory instruments themselves. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, this Court found an arguable issue of fact concerning the precise cause for the traffic stop. Accordingly, this Court granted Defendant's request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, which was held on August 4, 2022.
The Hearing Testimony
The hearing consisted of the direct and cross examination of New York State Police Investigator Luke Newton, who made the subject traffic stop on October 4, 2021. After listening to and observing the demeanor of Investigator Newton, the Court finds his testimony to be credible and makes the following findings of fact.
It was undisputed that the Defendant never committed a moving violation to cause the stop; instead, it was information that Investigator Newton obtained from running the Defendant's license plate that led to the traffic stop. Investigator Newton was patrolling the Taconic State Parkway when he observed a vehicle with Wisconsin "dealer" license plates. He checked the vehicle's registration status by running the license plate number through the computer system in his police vehicle, which was linked to a Department of Motor Vehicles database. The vehicle registration search yielded the result of "Not on File." Based upon his training and experience, Investigator Newton understood the result of "Not on File" to mean that the vehicle was unregistered or potentially never registered at all. On that basis, Investigator Newton then proceeded to effectuate the traffic stop.
Analysis
A traffic stop or automobile stop is a seizure implicating constitutional limitations under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. People v. Hinshaw , 35 N.Y.3d 427, 430, 132 N.Y.S.3d 90, 156 N.E.3d 812 (2020).
Where a defendant challenges the legality of a seizure in a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, in order to suppress the statements or other evidence obtained as a result of the seizure, the People have the burden of going forward, in the first instance, to establish the legality of the police conduct. People v. Abrucci-Kohan , 52 Misc. 3d 919, 921, 37 N.Y.S.3d 816 (Just. Ct. 2016). Once the People have met that burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish the illegality of the police conduct by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Abrucci-Kohan , 52 Misc. 3d at 921, 37 N.Y.S.3d 816.
The People's argument concentrated on the case of People v. Bushey , in which the Court of Appeals found that a police officer had probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop after running a vehicle's license plate through a Department of Motor Vehicle database and discovering that the vehicle's registration had been suspended due to unpaid parking tickets. See People v. Bushey, 29 N.Y.3d 158, 53 N.Y.S.3d 604, 75 N.E.3d 1165 (2017). In Bushey , the Court of Appeals explained that running a license plate number was not a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, in that there can be no expectation of privacy in a license plate number, and, therefore, the results obtained from running a license plate number may provide probable cause for a traffic stop. Bushey , 29 N.Y.3d at 160, 53 N.Y.S.3d 604, 75 N.E.3d 1165 (affirming County Court's reversal of the City Court's prior granting of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of driving while intoxicated and driving without a valid license obtained after the traffic stop). Traffic stops are lawful only when they are based upon probable cause that a driver has committed a traffic violation. People v. Hinshaw , 35 N.Y.3d 427, 430, 132 N.Y.S.3d 90, 156 N.E.3d 812 (2020). Probable cause exists when the police officer has an objectively reasonable belief that a traffic violation has occurred. People v. Guthrie , 25 N.Y.3d 130, 8 N.Y.S.3d 237, 30 N.E.3d 880 (2015). In the context of a traffic violation, the "objective standard" to compare against the police officer's "objectively reasonable belief" is the Vehicle and Traffic Law itself. People v. Robinson , 97 N.Y.2d 341, 351, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 (2001).
Here, Investigator Newton based his traffic stop upon his belief that the Defendant had violated VTL § 401.1(a), which states, in relevant part, that, "No motor vehicle shall be operated or driven upon the public highways of this state without first being registered in accordance with this article." Upon running the Defendant's license plate number and obtaining a result of "Not on File," this Court concludes that Investigator Newton had an objectively reasonable belief that the Defendant had violated VTL § 401.1(a) and, thus, probable cause to effectuate the traffic stop.
Accordingly, the People have met their burden in establishing the legality of the police conduct. The burden now shifts to the Defendant to demonstrate illegal police conduct concerning the traffic stop.
The Defendant's argument concentrated on the case of People v. Hinshaw , in which the Court of Appeals found a State Trooper's stop of the defendant's vehicle to be invalid and, therefore, granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drug and weapons crimes obtained after the traffic stop. People v. Hinshaw , 35 N.Y.3d 427, 132 N.Y.S.3d 90, 156 N.E.3d 812 (2020) (reversing the Appellate Division's affirmance of the County Court's previous denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drug and weapon crimes obtained after the traffic stop).
The similarity between the Defendant's case here and the Hinshaw case is that both traffic stops were initiated following the officer's plate check of the defendant's vehicle; however, that is where all similarity stops. The marked difference between the instant case and Hinshaw is the result that the officer received from his computer after running the plate check. In Hinshaw , the computer-generated result of the plate check stated as follows: "The following has been reported as an impounded vehicle — It should not be treated as a stolen vehicle hit — No further action should be taken based solely upon this impounded response." People v. Hinshaw , 35 N.Y.3d 427, 429, 132 N.Y.S.3d 90, 156 N.E.3d 812 (2020). Thus, in Hinshaw , the officer's computer literally told him that there was no violation of the law and further instructed him that no action should be taken based solely upon the computer's response. Additionally, the officer in Hinshaw admitted that he did not observe any traffic violations and that he had no other reason to stop the defendant other than the computer response he received from the plate check. The Hinshaw court appropriately concluded, "The result of the license plate check provided neither probable cause to conclude a traffic infraction had occurred nor any basis for an objectively reasonable belief that criminal behavior had occurred or was afoot." Hinshaw , 35 N.Y.3d at 437, 132 N.Y.S.3d 90, 156 N.E.3d 812.
Here, the Defendant's argument (i.e., that no probable cause could be derived from the plate check) relies upon equating the computer response received by Investigator Newton with the computer response received by the officer in Hinshaw . While the latter response expressly informed the officer that there was no crime or reason to perform a stop, the former response informed Investigator Newton that the Defendant's vehicle was (or objectively and reasonably could be) unregistered or never registered at all, in direct violation of VTL § 401.1(a). Therefore, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that Investigator Newton acted illegally when he stopped the Defendant's vehicle as a result of the information he obtained from the plate check.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to suppress Defendant's statements and/or evidence obtained from the subject traffic stop on October 4, 2021 is denied.
This constitutes the Opinion, Decision and Order of the Court.