Opinion
Ind. No. 70667-24
08-16-2024
The People of the State of New York, v. Kevin Williams, Defendant.
For the People: Anthony DiPerna, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, SANDRA DOORLEY, ESQ., Monroe County District Attorney For Defendant: Brittney Clark, Esq., Assistant Public Defender, JULIE CIANCA, ESQ., Monroe County Public Defender
Unpublished Opinion
For the People: Anthony DiPerna, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, SANDRA DOORLEY, ESQ., Monroe County District Attorney
For Defendant: Brittney Clark, Esq., Assistant Public Defender, JULIE CIANCA, ESQ., Monroe County Public Defender
Charles A. Schiano, Jr., J.
Defendant Kevin Williams is charged by the above-referenced Indictment with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 265.03(3) of the Penal Law of the State of New York. Defendant moved the Court for an order suppressing tangible evidence. The court granted a Mapp (Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [1961]) hearing which was held on July 8th and July 11th of 2024. The People presented the testimony of Officers Louis Buduson and Brandon Little of the Irondequoit Police Department ("IPD"). The defendant did not present any witnesses.
Findings of Fact
On October 24, 2022, at approximately 12:50 a.m., Officer Buduson was southbound in the 3000 block of Culver Road in a marked IPD vehicle. A vehicle, later identified as a silver Hyundai Electra, was traveling northbound. According to Officer Buduson's testimony "[i]t failed to dim it's high beam lights" (Hearing Transcript, July 8, 2024, p. 6, ln. 17). Officer Buduson testified this was a violation of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. Officer Buduson pursued the silver Hyundai. While he was behind the vehicle, he also noticed that the center brake light in the middle above the trunk was not operating, though the two other tail lights on either side of the rear of the vehicle were operable. He conducted a traffic stop at 3300 Culver Road.
There were two persons in the vehicle. The driver was a female identified by her driver's license as Alex Campo. The front passenger was later identified as Kevin Williams. Officer Buduson identified defendant in court as the passenger in the Hyundai, Kevin Williams. Officer Buduson informed the driver that he pulled her over for not dimming her lights and because the center brake light of the Hyundai was inoperable. As he returned to his vehicle, Officer Buduson received a radio dispatch informing him the Hyundai did not have insurance.
As Officer Buduson sat in his vehicle running the license, Officer Little appeared on the scene. He informed Officer Little that the registration of the Hyundai was suspended for a lapse of insurance. Officer Buduson said he would ask the driver for proof of insurance. Officer Little proposed that he would ask that question from the passenger side to "see if I can't smoke him out" (People's Exhibit 1, Louis Buduson BWC, first file ["Ex. 1"], 00:53:02). Officer Buduson agreed. Officer Little testified that Officer Buduson also told him that he had seen an open container of alcohol in the vehicle (Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2024, p. 7, lns. 11-14). A conversation about an open container does not appear on Officer Buduson's BWC audio/video (People's Exhibit 1) of the officers interaction from when Officer Little arrived through the time that the Officers together re-approached the vehicle.
After re-approaching the vehicle, Officer Little asked the driver, from the passenger side, about proof of insurance and then asked the passenger for identification (People's Exhibit 2, Brandon Little BWC, first file, 00:54:21). Ms. Campo showed Officer Buduson electronic proof of insurance on her phone which Officer Buduson found acceptable. He told her he would not tow the car for the insurance lapse and corresponding lapse in registration. He explained the driver should address the registration issue with the DMV as soon as possible (Ex. 1, 00:54:45 - 00:56:43).
Officer Buduson then asked if there were any guns or drugs in the vehicle and then immediately asked if he could search the vehicle (Ex. 1, 00:56:44). The driver said "no, sir" (Ex. 1, 00:56:46). Officer Buduson then asked again for permission to search and the driver asked "may I ask why?" Officer Buduson replied, "I'm just asking, looking for stuff that's all" (Ex. 1, 00:56:53). He then informed the driver that he was going to search the vehicle and asked her to step out. The driver then asked why again, and Officer Buduson then said it was because of the open container in the back seat (Ex. 1, 00:57:19). The driver replied, "the wine bottle" (Ex. 1, 00:57:22) The driver stepped out and was pat searched without incident.
Defendant was then asked to step out and face the car. Officer Little began a pat search. Officer Little testified that he felt a hard object in defendant's waistband. He asked defendant what it was. Defendant then attempted to flee and was detained by the Officers after a brief struggle. A semi-automatic handgun was found on the ground nearby.
Conclusions of Law
"[I]n evaluating the legality of police conduct, [a court] must determine whether the action taken was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter" (People v Howard, 129 A.D.3d 1654 [4th Dept 2015] [quotations omitted]; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 215 [1976]). "The police may lawfully stop a vehicle when they have probable cause to believe that the driver of [a vehicle] has committed a traffic violation, and they may lawfully 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 White, 27 A.D.3d 1181, 1182 [4th Dept 2006][citations and quotations omitted]).
The court finds that police here did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle based on a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Section § 375(3). Two elements are necessary to show a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(3). The People must show that (1) the use of high beams when an approaching vehicle is within 500 feet, and (2) interference with the driver by reason of such high beams (see People v Meola, 7 N.Y.2d 391, 395 [1960]). Here, there was no affirmative testimony that the silver Hyundai's high beams were on within 500 feet of Officer Buduson's vehicle (see People v Rose, 67 A.D.3d 1447, 1449 [4th Dept 2009]["the People presented no testimony at the hearing concerning the distance between defendant's vehicle and the oncoming vehicle..."]).
In addition, the People presented no testimony that the silver Hyundai's alleged use of high beam lights interfered with the operation of Officer Buduson's vehicle. "In order to constitute interference, a defendant's use of high beams must 'hinder or hamper the vision of [the] approaching motorist' so as to actually have an effect upon the other driver's operation of his or her vehicle (People v Meola, 7 N.Y.2d 391, 395 [1960]). For example, in People v Meola, the Court of Appeals found sufficient proof of interference where a State Trooper testified that the defendant's high beams caused the officer to reduce his speed (People v Meola, 7 N.Y.2d at 395-396; People v Allen, 89 A.D.3d 742, 743 [2d Dept 2011]). As to the other conditions that might violate Vehicle and Traffic Law Section § 375(3), the People presented no testimony that could support any other violation under the section, such as to the lighting and traffic conditions of the street at the time of the alleged violation (V&TL § 375[3]). "As the record fails to establish that the police officer took any action in response to defendant's use of his vehicle's high beams, the officer lacked probable cause for the stop of [the] vehicle [in which defendant was a passenger]" People v Langhorne, 59 Misc.3d 47, 51 [2d Dept App Term 2018][ citing People v Allen, 89 A.D.3d at 743]). "Thus, the stop of defendant's vehicle was based on a mistake of law. Where the officer's belief is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, the stop is illegal at the outset and any further actions by the police as a direct result of the stop are illegal" (People v Rose, 67 A.D.3d at 1449 [citations and quotations omitted]).
As to the brake light violation, V&TL § 375(2)(a)(3) provides that vehicles "manufactured on or after January first, nineteen hundred fifty-two, at least two lighted lamps on the rear, one on each side, which lamps shall display a red light visible from the rear for a distance of at least one thousand feet." Here, Officer Buduson testified on cross examination the silver Hyundai in fact had two working brake lights and defendant's Exhibit A shows two working brake lights on the silver Hyundai, one on each side displaying a red light. Accordingly, this grounds for the stop was also based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and "the stop is illegal at the outset and any further actions by the police as a direct result of the stop are illegal" (People v Rose, 67 A.D.3d at 1449 [citations and quotations omitted]). Accordingly, the tangible evidence, the gun alleged to have been on defendant's person and found on the ground near defendant, is suppressed.
It is therefore, ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress tangible evidence is GRANTED.