[*1]
| People v Leisenfelder |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 50233(U) [42 Misc 3d 1227(A)] |
| Decided on February 14, 2014 |
| Albany City Ct |
| Stiglmeier, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting
Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports. |
Albany City Ct
People of the
State of New York
against
Edward Leisenfelder, Defendant.
|
13-221109
P. David Soares, Esq.
Matthew A. Toporowski, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Albany County District Attorney
Albany City Court - Criminal Part
Morton Avenue at Broad Street
Albany, New York 12202
David P. Marinucci, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
449 New Karner Road
Albany, NY 12205
Gary F. Stiglmeier, J.
Defendant, Edward Leisenfelder, is charged with driving while
intoxicated, an unclassified misdemeanor, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law
§1192(3); driving while intoxicated (per se), an unclassified misdemeanor, in
violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(2); improper signal, a traffic infraction,
in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1163(d); and no seat belt, a traffic
infraction, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1229-c(3). Pursuant to a
decision of the court, a Huntley/Dunaway/Mapp hearing was held on January 30,
2014. The matter now comes before the Court for a decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the hearing, Officer Michael Geraci testified for the People. Additionally,
the Court [*2]viewed a video taken from Officer Geraci's
vehicle which showed Officer Geraci's view of defendant's vehicle prior to the stop of
defendant's vehicle. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law based upon the evidence presented at the hearing.
On the night of March 24, 2013, Officer Geraci was working the 8pm-4am
shift on patrol in the City of Albany. Toward the end of his shift, at around 3:17 am, he
noticed a dark SUV exiting a parking lot on Broadway near Pleasant Street in Albany. As
the vehicle exited the parking lot, turning slightly left on Broadway, it crossed Broadway
at a diagonal and drove onto Pleasant Street. Officer Geraci noted that the driver (the
defendant) failed to use his turn signal while exiting the parking lot onto Broadway
(while Officer Geraci also stated that defendant failed to signal his turn onto Pleasant
Street from Broadway, this Court has determined from viewing the video and examining
all evidence that Officer Geraci could not tell from his vantage point whether defendant
signaled this right hand turn, and that, in any event, no signal was required of defendant
to make such "turn"). Officer Geraci followed the driver a very short distance, as the
driver pulled over and parked after driving just a few feet onto Pleasant Street . Officer
Geraci then turned on his lights and exited his vehicle, planning to give the driver a ticket
for not using his signal as he exited the parking lot. Officer Geraci approached the driver,
asking for his license and registration. He noted, as he approached the vehicle to speak
with the driver, that the driver was not wearing his seat belt.
Officer Geraci noted an odor of alcoholic beverage emanating from the
vehicle and from defendant. Officer Geraci noted that, at the time of the stop, the
defendant's eyes were glassy and, when answering questions, defendant's speech was
slightly slurred. Defendant stated that he had 4-5 drinks that evening. Officer Geraci
asked defendant to exit the vehicle. Defendant used the door for support as he exited the
vehicle. Officer Geraci then administered three field sobriety tests to defendant. Officer
Geraci testified that defendant "failed" all three tests (the HGN, the walk and turn, and
the one-legged stand). It was the opinion of Officer Geraci that defendant was
intoxicated. Defendant was then arrested by Officer Geraci.
CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
With respect to the Huntley portion of the
hearing, the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish voluntariness of the
statement beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965).
The involuntariness of an inculpatory statement should be evaluated by looking at the
"totality of the circumstances" under which it came about. People v. Anderson,
42 NY2d 35 (1977). In order to determine the issue of suppression, the element of
custody must first be established. The test used to determine whether a person is in
custody is what a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought had she
been in the defendant's position. People v. Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 (1969);
People v. Norton, 135 AD2d 984 (3d Dept, 1987). It is well established that both
elements of custody and interrogation must be present before Miranda warnings
are constitutionally required. People v. Huffman, 41 NY2d 29 (1976). The
People have met their burden with respect to the Huntley portion of the hearing.
The motion to suppress statements is hereby denied.
In order to determine the existence of probable cause, the Court must
determine whether or not, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared at the
time of the arrest, a reasonable person in the position of the police officer could have
concluded that the motorist operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. People
v. Phraner, 151 Misc 2d 961 (Dist Ct Suffolk Co, 1991). [*3]Accordingly, in order to establish the legality of an arrest
pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192, the officer must have had reasonable
cause to believe that defendant had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192.
People v. Hilker, 133 AD2d 986 (3d Dept, 1987). A police officer may effectuate
an arrest for an offense without a warrant if he has reasonable cause to believe that a
person has committed that offense in his presence. CPL 140.10(1)(a). Reasonable cause
means probable cause. People v. Maldonado, 86 NY2d 631,635 (1995), citing
People v. Johnson, 66 NY2d 398 (1985).
The People must also establish reasonable cause for the initial stop of the
vehicle. However, all that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim,
caprice, or idle curiosity. People v. Osborne, 158 AD2d 740 (3d Dept, 1990). It
is enough if the stop is based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together
with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Id.
Officer Geraci stopped defendant's vehicle because defendant failed to use
his turn signal while exiting the parking lot onto Broadway. It is well settled law that
VTL §1163 does not (nor does any other NYS law) require that a motorist use his
directional signal when exiting a parking lot. VTL §1163; Byer v. Jackson,
241 AD2d 943 (4th Dept 1997); People v. Mazzola, 12 Misc 3d 1165(A)
(Suffolk Cnty Dist Ct 2006); See, People v. Miller, 39 Misc 3d 782 (Yates Cnty Ct
2013); People v. Silvers, 195 Misc 2d 739 (Mt Vernon City Ct 2003).When, as in
this case, an officer makes a mistake of law when initiating a traffic stop, "any further
actions by the police as a direct result of the stop are illegal" (Byer v. Jackson,
241 AD2d at 944), and "suppression is appropriate" (People v. Miller, 39 Misc
3d at 785-786). Accordingly, all evidence herein is suppressed as the People failed to
establish reasonable cause for the initial stop of defendant's vehicle [People v.
Mazzola, 12 Misc 3d 1165(A)], and the within charges against defendant are
dismissed.
All motions not granted herein are hereby denied. This opinion shall
constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER.SO ORDERED.
Thisday of February, 2014____________________________________
Albany, New YorkGary F. Stiglmeier
Albany City Court Judge