From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Quezada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1991
177 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 18, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and that, as a result, the physical evidence recovered during the search of his person and his oral statements should be suppressed, is without merit. The arresting officer testified that he observed the defendant drive through two red lights and two stop signs, swerve back and forth between traffic lanes, and knock over some parking signs. In addition, the officer chased the defendant through residential neighborhoods at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour before the pursuit came to an end when the defendant collided with another police vehicle. The defendant's conduct gave the officer probable cause to arrest him for reckless endangerment in the second degree (see, People v Gittens, 110 A.D.2d 908; People v. Simpson, 99 A.D.2d 555). Moreover, the officer's observations of the defendant when he was removed from his car also provided probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated (see, People v. Bratcher, 165 A.D.2d 906; People v. Troche, 162 A.D.2d 483).

The subsequent search and recovery from the defendant's person of a quantity of cocaine was incident to the lawful arrest (see, People v. Troiano, 35 N.Y.2d 476, 478; People v. Terrero, 139 A.D.2d 830). Furthermore, even though the defendant had not yet been read his Miranda rights, his oral statements to the effect that he had had a few beers and that he had spent his whole paycheck on the drugs were spontaneous and voluntary and not the result of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476; People v. Wade, 143 A.D.2d 703; People v. Fiorello, 140 A.D.2d 708).

We note that the hearing court's oral decision denying suppression, although brief, complied with CPL 710.60 (6) (see, People v. Franco, 167 A.D.2d 957).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Quezada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1991
177 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Quezada

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEONEL QUEZADA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 18, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 593

Citing Cases

People v. Luna

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly…

People v. Brown

at the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress statements made by the defendant after he was advised of,…