People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 08 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 16070216.,16070216. |
| Citation | 43 N.Y.S.3d 768 (Table) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jeanette M. MILLER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Bradley D. Marble, Town of Lockport Prosecutor, for the People.
Defendant Appearing Pro se.
The Defendant, Jeanette M. Miller (Miller) was charged with Unlawful Possession of Marihuana on July 10, 2016. She was issued an appearance ticket returnable for a July 21, 2016 arraignment. Miller entered a plea of not guilty, requested to represent herself pro se, made an oral motion to dismiss in the interest of justice (which was procedurally denied without prejudice to be put in writing), and the matter was scheduled for conference with the Town Prosecutor on August 2, 2016. At that time the Town Prosecutor made a motion to adjourn the case in contemplation of dismissal pursuant to C.P.L. 170.56. A closer reading of C.P.L. 170.56 does not allow the prosecution to make such a motion. In any event, Miller objected, refused to accept the ACD or make the motion herself and filed a written motion to dismiss in the Furtherance of Justice. The matter was adjourned to August 16, 2016 for the Town Prosecutor to respond and oral arguments were scheduled for September 6, 2016. The Court reserved decision and now issues the same.
On July 10, 2016 Miller was operating her motor vehicle on Saunders Settlement Road in the Town of Lockport when she struck and injured a bird. Because she is a volunteer for New York State as a D .E.C. licensed Wildlife Rehabilitator she knew it was imperative to remove the injured animal from the road so that other birds or scavengers, who might approach the injured bird, would not get hit or cause an accident. Accordingly, she stopped in the middle of the road, put on her four-way emergency flashers and picked up the injured bird. Shortly thereafter New York State Trooper Daniel J. Alaimo happened on the scene, pulled behind Miller and activated his overhead lights. As he approached her car he could smell a strong odor of marihuana coming from the vehicle. He asked her where the marihuana was located in the vehicle. The Defendant broke down, began to cry, and pursuant to a C.P.L. 710.30 notice, admitted:
The Defendant, in an excellent pro se application, has outlined and given reasons for a dismissal in the Furtherance of Justice, for no probable cause to stop her motor vehicle and improper search of her motor vehicle without her consent. She also challenges her statement given to the police as "fruit of the poisonous tree" as no Miranda warnings were given. Finally, she attacks the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument because no laboratory tests identifying the marihuana have been filed as yet. This is her first arrest of any kind.
The People maintain there was a sufficient basis for the stop and ultimate search of the Defendant's vehicle. Certainly, sufficient probable cause exists. They oppose a dismissal in the interest of justice.
ISSUES PRESENTED
OPINION OF THE COURTApproaching an occupied stationary vehicle is a minimal intrusion which is not the equivalent of a stop. See, People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447, (1982). This situation is analogous to approaching a citizen on the street to request information and therefore the courts use the same four-tiered analysis set forth in People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 at 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 (1976) to justify the conduct of the police. See, People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 629 N.Y.S.2d 161, 652 N.E.2d 907 (1995) ; People v. Harrison, supra.
When Trooper Alaimo approached the vehicle and spoke to the defendant, her emergency flashers were on, and he was engaged in a public safety function making sure that the defendant was safe. The trooper's subsequent act of inquiry to see if defendant was in distress was justified under the "emergency doctrine." See, People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246, 347 N.E.2d 607 (1976), cert. denied sub nom. Mitchell v. New York, 426 U.S. 953, 96 S.Ct. 3178, 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976). Had the Trooper not stopped, he would have been greatly criticized for not doing so.
Admissibility of Defendant's statements regarding possession of marihuana is dependent upon if it was voluntarily given to Trooper Alaimo. People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 (1965), requires the People to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a statement was voluntarily made. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), requires custodial interrogation for involuntariness of the statement. Both cases require defendant to be under arrest and questions being asked to illicit an incriminating response. Trooper Alaimo observed that the Defendant stopped in an emergency situation. He noticed the smell of marihuana and Defendant admitted possession. Trooper Alaimo's actions were simply a temporary roadside detention for the purpose of investigating a motorist who had stopped and were not custodial in nature. See e.g. People v. Milo, 300 A.D.2d 680, 753 N.Y.S.2d 90 (2002) ; People v. McGreal, 190 A.D.2d 869, 593 N.Y.S.2d 868 (1993) ; People v. Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746, 523 N.Y.S.2d 915 (1988).
Trooper Alaimo made no threats of physical force, nor applied any undue pressure, nor made any promises to the defendant to make her statements involuntary. [CPL § 60.45(2) ].
Most if not all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial