People v. Morrisey
| Decision Date | 04 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | 15888. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 06247,21 A.D.3d 597,799 N.Y.S.2d 642 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS J. MORRISEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered July 14, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide.
Defendant was operating a motor vehicle which was involved in a one-car accident, resulting in the death of one of the vehicle's passengers. A police officer arrested defendant in the hospital emergency room after detecting multiple signs of intoxication. The officer read defendant his driving while intoxicated refusal warnings and Miranda warnings. Defendant's response to the officer's request for submission to a blood test is in dispute; at the suppression hearing, the officer testified that defendant consented while defendant testified that he did not consent. A blood test was administered and yielded a blood alcohol content of .20%. Defendant was indicted for the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide. Following the suppression hearing, County Court denied defendant's motion, finding that defendant consented to the blood test, but that even if he did not consent, the test was appropriately administered based on implied consent under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (a) (1). Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment, and now appeals.
County Court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress the blood test results. Defendant contends that the test results should be suppressed because he did not consent to the test and, alternatively, if he did consent then he was confused and did not understand what he was doing. It is irrelevant whether defendant expressly consented or was confused when his driving while intoxicated warnings were read to him. "Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test" of their blood, provided that the test is administered within a certain time period and at the direction of a police officer having reasonable cause to believe that the person operated a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a]). "Where these conditions are satisfied, the statute furnishes authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prince v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles
...N.Y.S.2d 157, 589 N.E.2d 380 (1992); People v. Kates, 53 N.Y.2d 591, 595, 444 N.Y.S.2d 446, 428 N.E.2d 852 (1981); People v. Morrisey, 21 A.D.3d 597, 598, 799 N.Y.S.2d 642 (3d Dep't 2005); People v. Dombrowski–Bove, 300 A.D.2d 1122, 1123, 753 N.Y.S.2d 259 (4th Dep't 2002). See Gagliardi v. ......
-
Prince v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles
...consent to be knowing. People v. Goodell, 79 N.Y.2d 869, 870 (1992); People v. Kates, 53 N.Y.2d 591, 595 (1981); People v. Morrisey, 21 A.D.3d 597, 598 (3d Dep't 2005); People v. Dombrowski-Bove, 300 A.D.2d 1122, 1123 (4th Dep't 2002). See Gaqliardi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 144 A.D.......
-
People v. Bohacek
...869, 870, 581 N.Y.S.2d 157, 589 N.E.2d 380 [1992];People v. Centerbar, 80 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 914 N.Y.S.2d 784 [2011];People v. Morrisey, 21 A.D.3d 597, 598, 799 N.Y.S.2d 642 [2005] ). If there is probable cause to arrest, a formal arrest of an unconscious driver is not required ( see People......
-
People v. Centerbar
...and Traffic Law § 1194[2][a][1]; see People v. Goodell, 79 N.Y.2d 869, 870, 581 N.Y.S.2d 157, 589 N.E.2d 380 [1992]; People v. Morrisey, 21 A.D.3d 597, 598, 799 N.Y.S.2d 642 [2005] ). Unlike an actual consent situation in which a driver voluntarily submits to a test, the implied consent pro......