People v. Davis

• Citation: 16 N.Y.S.3d 793 (Table)
• Decision Date: 24 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014–0719.,2014–0719.
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Cynthia A. DAVIS, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

16 N.Y.S.3d 793 (Table)

PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Cynthia A. DAVIS, Defendant.

No. 2014–0719.

City Court, City of Glens Falls.

March 24, 2015.

Opinion

GARY C. HOBBS, J.

The Defendant, Cynthia A. Davis, by her attorney, Daniel J. Hogan, Esq., of counsel, to McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, L.L.P., having moved this Court for an order pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30, 60.45, 100.40 and 170.30 for an order dismissing the charge of Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs, in violation of VTL § 1192(4), and upon reading and filing of the Notice of Motion, dated March 5, 2015, together with the affirmation of Daniel J. Hogan, Esq ., dated March 5, 5015, and all supporting documents annexed thereto, and the People having responded to said motion by Affirmation of Benjamin R. Smith, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, dated March 19, 2015, and upon due deliberation, this Court issues the following Decision and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Defendant was arrested on September 2, 2014, at approximately 3:09 pm, on the charges of Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs [VTL § 1192(4) ], Failure to Keep Right [VTL § 1120(a) ] and Unsafe Backing [VTL § 1211(a) ]. The filed misdemeanor complaint alleges that:

“defendant did drive and operate a 2007 Subaru Legacy, a motor vehicle, bearing New York registration ACM9211 on Pine Street, a public highway, in the City of Glens Falls, County of Warren, State of New York while in an impaired condition by prescription medication. While in this impaired condition your defendant did cause a motor vehicle accident where she struck two vehicles. ”

The basis for the factual allegations in the complaint are “on personal knowledge and information and belief, the source being, the DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS. ”

A September 2, 2014 supporting deposition by Patrol Officer Bradley Hamilton affirms that, on the date of the incident, the road conditions were “dry,” the traffic was “light” and the weather “clear.” The reason for the stop was an accident with property damage. A CPL 710.30 Notice annexed to the supporting deposition asserts that, at approximately 3:00 p.m., while at the arrest scene, the defendant allegedly admitted to operating the vehicle, indicating that she was driving from the hospital. The defendant allegedly stated to officer Hamilton, “I hadtoday [sic]. I think I've had 6 since 10 am. ”

The supporting deposition further affirms that the defendant allegedly had glassy eyes, impaired speech, impaired motor coordination, and that she failed field sobriety tests consisting of horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn and the one leg stand. A pre-screening test of the defendant was negative for the presence of alcohol.

The defendant was allegedly read her Miranda warnings by officer Hamilton on September 2, 2014, at 3:23 pm, at the Glens Falls Police Department. At approximately 3:56 pm, while at the Glens Falls Hospital, the defendant allegedly stated to officer Hamilton that she had operated the motor vehicle, she was driving to her home and she was driving from the hospital. The defendant allegedly further stated, “Now, I know I shouldn't be driving, but nobody said I shouldn't. I was arrested in June for DWI. ”

A blood sample was obtained from the defendant at the Glens Falls Hospital by nurse Reuther for subsequent testing. On March 18, 2015, the People filed the certified toxicology report, dated March 9, 2015, from the New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center, which indicates that the drug “Lorazepam,” was present in the defendant's blood.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At the time of the defendant's arrest, she was issued an appearance ticket directing her to appear in this Court on September 16, 2014. The defendant failed to appear on September 16, 2014, and an arrest warrant was directed to be issued to secure the defendant's appearance in Court. On September 18, 2014, the defendant appeared in Court and was arraigned on the charges. A “not guilty” plea was entered by the Court on the defendant's behalf.

The defendant was released in her own recognizance and directed to return to court with counsel on September 25, 2014. By letter dated September 23, 2014 from attorney Hogan, the defendant requested “a short adjournment ... in hopes that we might be able to best find out her needs for alcohol/drug treatment and be able to report same to the District Attorney's Office. ” Since there was no requested adjourned date, this Court contacted attorney Hogan's office to determine the length of the requested adjournment. By letter dated September 26, 2014 from attorney Hogan, the defendant requested an adjournment to October, 30, 2014, and the matter was adjourned, at the defendant's request, until October 30, 2014. On October 30, 2014, the matter was again adjourned, at the defendant's request, until December 16, 2014. By letter dated December 16, 2014, the defendant requested a further adjournment “to late January so that we can conference this matter with the District Attorney's Office.” The matter was adjourned at the defendant's request until January 29, 2015.

On January 29, 2015, counsel failed to appear at court, and the matter was adjourned by the court to February 5, 2015 to allow counsel to appear. A letter was sent to counsel by this Court concerning the February 5, 2015 adjourned date.

On February 5, 2015, defendant and counsel appeared in court and a scheduling order was placed on the record with defendant's omnibus motions due by March 5, 2015, the People's response due by March 26, 2015 and a subsequent court appearance on April 2, 2015. In the March 19, 2015 Affirmation of Benjamin R. Smith, Esq., the People announced their readiness for trial.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Defendant has timely filed her motions seeking an order: a) dismissing the charge of DWAI Drugs on the grounds that the factual allegations of the Misdemeanor Complaint and supporting deposition is legally insufficient to support that charge; b) suppressing the defendant's alleged statements made to the police; c) suppressing evidence obtained...