Opinion
82
Decided June 4, 2002.
APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered August 2, 2001, which (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Warren County Court (John Austin, J.) rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of driving while intoxicated, (2) granted defendant's motion to supress, and (3) dismissed the indictment.
People v. Wright, 286 A.D.2d 520, reversed.
Submitted by Ted M. Wilson, for appellant.
Submitted by Gregory V. Canale, for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant's motion to suppress denied, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts.
After receiving a tip from an unidentified complainant concerning the reckless driving of a red Suzuki, with the top down or removed, a State Trooper immediately commenced a search for the allegedly offending vehicle. He observed a Suzuki matching the description and, while following it, ascertained that it had a faulty muffler (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375). The Trooper then activated his siren and pulled the vehicle over. Based upon his observations, defendant's failure to pass sobriety tests and his admission as to drinking, the Trooper arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated. Defendant was ultimately indicted and convicted of felony driving while intoxicated.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed defendant's judgment of conviction and granted defendant's suppression motion on the ground that the Trooper used defendant's traffic infraction as a pretext to investigate the matter reported by the complainant. Thus, the Appellate Division considered the Trooper's primary motivation in concluding that defendant's violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law could not serve as a valid basis for a traffic stop. However, People v. Robinson ( 97 N.Y.2d 341, 2001 WL 1657207), decided after the Appellate Division rendered its decision in the instant case, establishes that, provided a traffic stop is supported by probable cause, "[n]either the primary motivation of the officer nor a determination of what a reasonable traffic officer would have done under the circumstances is relevant" (id. at *4). Because there is evidence to support the undisturbed finding of the suppression court that the Trooper had probable cause to believe defendant committed a muffler violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the stop was lawful.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order reversed, defendant's motion to suppress denied and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, for consideration of the facts, in a memorandum.