People v. Spears
| Citation | 201 Misc. 666 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Alvin Spears, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1952 |
| Court | New York District Court |
Sol Rubin for defendant.
Aaron Simmons, Corporation Counsel (John A. Bodmer of counsel), for John Meehan, complainant.
The defendant is charged with violation of subdivision 5 of section 70 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, operating an automobile while in an intoxicated condition. It appears that shortly after his arrest he was given an examination at police headquarters through the use of a drunkometer machine to determine the amount of alcohol, if any, in the defendant's blood. Through counsel, he now moves to suppress all evidence obtained by the use of such test.
I must acknowledge the very great help I have received from counsel for the defendant and counsel for the prosecution in arriving at my decision on this application. Voluminous briefs have been filed by both attorneys covering decisions in many of our courts. In addition, the court has made its own research.
It is the position of the defendant that in submitting to the test and then having the result of that test used as evidence on the trial, defendant is giving compulsory testimony against himself and that this violates the defendant's constitutional rights. The prosecution contends that the test was an examination of defendant physically and that others will testify as to the result of that examination.
The statute in question provides that on the trial of such a proceeding "the court may admit evidence of the amount of alcohol in the defendant's blood taken within two hours of the time of the arrest, as shown by a medical or chemical analysis of his breath, blood, urine or saliva." The statute then provides that evidence that there was .05% or less by weight of alcohol in his blood is prima facie evidence that the defendant was not in an intoxicated condition; evidence of more than that but less that .15% by weight of alcohol is relevant but not prima facie; evidence of the presence of .15% or more may be admitted as prima facie evidence that defendant was in an intoxicated condition.
It will be noted that this is a statute enacted by the Legislature of this State. This is not a rule of procedure adopted by the police department. In many of the cases where evidence has been suppressed in other States, there was a physical assault upon the defendant in procuring the evidence. See Rochin v. California (342 U. S. 165) where defendant had swallowed morphine tablets when the police officers entered his room. He was arrested and taken to a hospital where they were removed from his stomach with a stomach pump. This sort of treatment was condemned by the United States Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals in this State in People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Conterno
...of experts interpreting the test. People v. Tucker, 1948, 88 Cal.App.2d 333, 339, 198 P.2d 941; People on Complaint of Meehan v. Spears, 1952, 201 Misc. 666, 114 N.Y.S.2d 869, 870. The test and the evidence founded upon it may protect the innocent (Toms v. State, supra, 95 Okl.Cr. 60, 239 P......
-
People v. Sevilla
...forcibly disgorged; Breithaupt v. Abram, 1954, 58 N.M. 385, 271 P.2d 827, blood test without consent; People on Complaint of Meehan v. Spears, 1952, 201 Misc. 666, 114 N.Y.S.2d 869, breath specimen; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 260 P.2d 8, blood test without In Ash v. State, 139 Tex.......
-
State v. Pierce, 167
...case reaches an opposite result by reason of the element of violence and brutal conduct disclosed. See People on Complaint of Meehan v. Spears, 201 Misc. 666, 114 N.Y.S.2d 869; People v. Kendall, 1952, 111 Cal.App.2d 204, 244 P.2d 418; Bratburd v. State, 1952, 200 Md. 96, 88 A.2d 446. In an......
-
MATTER OF SCHUTT v. MacDuff
...P. 2d 941 [Cal.]; State of Idaho v. Ayres, 211 P. 2d 142 [Idaho]; State of New Hampshire v. Sturtevant, 70 A. 2d 909 [N. H.]; People v. Spears, 201 Misc. 666, and Bovey v. State of New York, 197 Misc. 302.) This, because the decisions of this State have limited the effect of the State const......