People v. Ward

• Decision Date: 09 April 1998
• Citation: 176 Misc.2d 398,673 N.Y.S.2d 297
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 98,215 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Russell WARD, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 297

673 N.Y.S.2d 297

176 Misc.2d 398, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 98,215

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Russell WARD, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Richmond County.

April 9, 1998.

Christopher Nalley, Staten Island, for defendant.

William L. Murphy, District Attorney of Richmond County (Michael Conroy, of counsel), for plaintiff.

STEPHEN ROONEY, Justice.

Defendant is charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3). The defense contends the police had no basis for the initial stop of the defendant, that defendant's Fourth Amendment fights were therefore violated, and that all evidence obtained thereafter is suppressible as fruit of the illegal stop. Defendant also argues that his refusal to submit to a chemical test was obtained more than two hours after his arrest and therefore is inadmissible pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. The People maintain that the defendant's arrest was lawful, and that evidence of a refusal is admissible even if obtained more than two hours after arrest. In this regard a combined Dunaway/Huntley/Mapp hearing was held before this court with two witnesses testifying: Officer Larry Holmes of the U.S. Park Police and Officer Lewis Morales of the Staten Island Highway Unit. Both officers were credible.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On May 27, 1997 at about 7:26 p.m., Officer Holmes was traveling southbound on Cedar

                Grove Avenue, Staten Island, New York, when he observed the defendant throw an object from the driver's side window of a black pickup truck parked on the roadside.  The defendant then began to drive the truck northbound on Cedar Grove Avenue.  Officer Holmes turned on his rotating lights and used his vehicle to block the road.  The defendant's vehicle stopped about five feet from the officer's vehicle.  Officer Holmes observed the defendant reach down toward the ignition switch and throw what appeared to be keys into the bushes.  The defendant then exited his vehicle and staggered toward the police vehicle, asking why he was being stopped and stating he had done nothing wrong.  His speech was slurred and thick.  Officer Holmes then had a conversation with the defendant concerning the littering he had observed.  During the conversation the defendant said he had had one beer.  The officer asked defendant if he was on any medication and defendant said "no".  Officer Holmes could now detect a strong odor of alcohol from the defendant and asked him to perform certain field sobriety tests.  During the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, Officer Holmes noticed defendant's eyes were bloodshot and his eye movement was very bouncy.  During the ten pace walk and turn test, the defendant stepped offline at least twice and failed to make the proper heel to toe connection numerous times.  The officer then advised the defendant he was under arrest.  Defendant was transported to the Park Police office by another officer at about 7:55 p.m.  Officer Holmes recovered the object originally thrown (an empty Budweiser beer can) from the roadside.  Two additional empty Budweiser cans were found nearby.  A small cooler containing four unopened cans of Budweiser was recovered from defendant's pickup.  Officer Holmes unsuccessfully attempted to locate defendant's keys.  He returned to the Park Police office at about 8:10 p.m., and began filling out paperwork concerning the arrest.  The defendant was again asked if he was on any medication and he replied, "Yes, an asthma inhaler."   He was also asked about prior arrests, and responded that he had prior DWI cases and various traffic violations.  At about 8:40 p.m. the defendant was transported to the 120 Precinct for a breathalyser test.  The test was delayed because of the unavailability of the assigned Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit (I.D.T.U.) officer.  Eventually, Officer Morales, another member of the I.D.T.U., was summoned to the precinct, arriving at about 10:05 p.m.  As he prepared the equipment in the I.D.T.U. room he heard the defendant, in another room, speaking in a loud, combative and argumentative manner.  Subsequently, the defendant was escorted to the testing room.  He stopped at the threshold and refused to enter.  Officer Morales explained the testing procedure to the defendant, who remained in the doorway and refused to take the test.  The officer next asked the defendant to perform physical coordination tests in front of the video camera.  The defendant refused.  Defendant was asked to make a video of his refusal.  Defendant declined that request also.  Officer Morales read defendant the consequences of a refusal from the police department's intoxicated driving examination instruction sheet.  This item was entered into evidence at the hearing and contained the statutory warnings required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(b)(1), (2)(c) and (2)(f).  The defendant persisted in his refusal.  At 10:25 p.m. Officer Morales concluded his interaction with the defendant and noted the refusal
                

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendant's Dunaway motion is denied. The defense concedes that littering on a public highway is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1220). The officer's initial stop of defendant's vehicle was therefore lawful. People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39 (1975). Thereafter, the officer's observations of defendant, including his staggering gait, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes, as well as the field sobriety test results, established probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated. People v. Blajeski, 125 A.D.2d 582, 509 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2d Dept., 1986).

Defendant's Huntley motion is granted in part and denied in part. The People concede that statements made at the Park Police office were "custodial and pre-Miranda ". The motion is granted as to these statements. Defendant's initial statements, made on Cedar Grove Avenue, asking why he was being stopped and denying any wrongdoing, were spontaneous. Defendant's ensuing statements, that he had had one beer and "no" in response to the inquiry concerning medication, were made during a temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop. This was not a custodial setting, and Miranda warnings were not required. People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 524 N.Y.S.2d 378, 519 N.E.2d 289 (1987); People v. Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746, 523 N.Y.S.2d 915 (2d Dept., 1988). Defendant's Huntley motion is denied as to these statements made on Cedar Grove Avenue.

Defendant's Mapp motion as to the beer in the cooler is also denied. A valid arrest for a crime authorizes a warrantless search of a vehicle and of a closed container visible in the passenger compartment of the vehicle which the arrested person is driving when the circumstances give reason to believe that the vehicle or its visible contents may be related to the crime for which the arrest is being made. People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745 (1982). Such is the case here with the cooler and its contents which were, therefore, properly seized.

Finally, defendant argues that evidence of a refusal to take the chemical test must be suppressed as the test was not offered until more than two hours after the arrest, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(a). That section provides that anyone who operates a motor vehicle impliedly consents to the administration of a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content. Subparagraph one (1) of that section provides that the test must be administered within two hours of the arrest. The defendant contends that when the test is belatedly offered, evidence of a refusal to take it should be suppressed. The Court of Appeals has not specifically addressed this issue, and the only appellate decision squarely dealing with it, People v. Brol, 81 A.D.2d 739, 438 N.Y.S.2d 424, a 1981 Fourth Department case, found such evidence to be incompetent. Nevertheless, considering the reasoning in Brol, supra in conjunction with several subsequent decisions interpreting the scope of the two hour rule, it seems clear that today the rule has no application in a determination of the admissibility of evidence that a defendant refused a chemical test.

The Brol court, having...