People v. Wisniewski

• Decision Date: 03 February 2017
• Citation: 147 A.D.3d 1388,47 N.Y.S.3d 543
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julie R. WISNIEWSKI, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

147 A.D.3d 1388

47 N.Y.S.3d 543

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Julie R. WISNIEWSKI, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Feb. 3, 2017.

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (Erin E. McCampbell of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Joseph V. Cardone, District Attorney, Albion (Katherine Bogan of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[2] ; 1193[1] [c][ii] ) and driving while ability impaired (§ 1192[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence arising from the allegedly improper stop of her vehicle. We reject that contention. The police may stop a vehicle "when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime" (People v. Robinson, 122 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 996 N.Y.S.2d 433 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We conclude that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle based on the contents of the 911 call from an identified citizen informant (see People v. Argyris, 24 N.Y.3d 1138, 1140–1141, 3 N.Y.S.3d 711, 27 N.E.3d 425, rearg. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1211, 4 N.Y.S.3d 593, 28 N.E.3d 27, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 793, 193 L.Ed.2d 722 ; People v. Torres, 125 A.D.3d 1481, 1482, 3 N.Y.S.3d 851, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1172, 15 N.Y.S.3d 304, 36 N.E.3d 107 ; People v. Van Every, 1 A.D.3d 977, 978–979, 767 N.Y.S.2d 176, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 602, 776 N.Y.S.2d 233, 808 N.E.2d 369 ). The evidence in the record establishes that the information provided by the identified citizen informant "was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, satisfied the two-pronged Aguilar–Spinelli test for the reliability of hearsay tips in this particular context and contained sufficient information about" defendant's commission of the crime of driving while intoxicated (Argyris, 24 N.Y.3d at 1140–1141, 3 N.Y.S.3d 711, 27 N.E.3d 425 ; see Torres, 125 A.D.3d at 1482, 3 N.Y.S.3d 851 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.