Defendant moves to reargue this Court's decision of December 17, 2007, wherein this Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the Simplified Traffic Informations against her. The People oppose defendant's application.

The Defendant is charged with one count of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1192.2, Driving While Intoxicated as an unclassified misdemeanor, one count of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 319.1, No Insurance as a traffic infraction, and one count of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375(2)(a), No Headlights as a traffic infraction. On December 13, 2007, this Court conducted a Huntley, Dunaway and Mapp hearing regarding this matter. The Huntley aspect of the hearing was with respect to two statements allegedly made by the defendant, "I drank before, I know I'm wrong," and "it's a new car." The Dunaway aspect of the hearing was with respect to the basis for the stop of the defendant's vehicle. The Mapp aspect of the hearing addressed the suppression of the defendant's breath test based on defendant's contention that there was no basis for her arrest.

After the hearing, this Court found the testimony of the People's sole witness, Police Officer Ferguson to be credible. Officer Ferguson testified as follows: on July 4, 2007, at approximately 5:09 a.m., he was traveling East on Hempstead Turnpike in East Meadow, within the County of Nassau, State of New York. Officer Ferguson testified that it was still dark outside at that time. At the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Merrick Avenue, he observed a vehicle which was stopped at the traffic light without headlights on. Officer Ferguson testified that his observation of a vehicle being operated without headlights on, while it was still dark outside, immediately drew his attention. As a result, he followed the vehicle and pulled it over. Officer Ferguson testified that upon stopping the vehicle, he approached the driver's side window and informed the driver (identified in Court as the defendant), that she was driving without her headlights on. The defendant responded, "it's a new car."

Officer Ferguson testified that he noticed that the defendant's eyes were watery and bloodshot. Officer Ferguson further testified that he detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the defendant's breath, and that she spoke with a slight slur. Officer Ferguson next requested the defendant's driver's license and registration, which the defendant produced. Based on [*2]his observations of the defendant, Officer Ferguson asked the defendant to step out of her vehicle to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. Officer Ferguson requested that the defendant perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the One Leg Stand test, and the Nine Step Walk and Turn test. Officer Ferguson testified that these tests are used nationwide by Police Officers to detect intoxication. The Defendant consented to performing the tests. Officer Ferguson testified that after the defendant's poor performance on the tests combined with his observations of the defendant, he reached the conclusion that the defendant was intoxicated and he placed her under arrest.

The defendant did not call any witnesses at the hearing. Defendant submitted for the Court's consideration a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report and a Newsday weather report for July 4, 2007. Both documents were admitted into evidence without objection by the People. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report indicated that sunrise on July 4, 2007, occurred at 5:28 a.m. The Newsday weather report indicated that sunrise on July 4, 2007, occurred at 5:27 a.m.

This Court concluded as a matter of law that there was a reasonable basis for the stop of the defendant's vehicle and probable cause for the defendant's arrest. This Court further ruled that the statement made by the defendant, "it's a new car," was voluntary and spontaneous. The defendant was not in custody when the statement was made, nor was she being questioned or interrogated. Consequently, the defendant's statement, "it's a new car," would be admissible at trial. The People failed to elicit any testimony whatsoever concerning the second statement allegedly made by the defendant, "I drank before, I know I'm wrong." As a result, this Court suppressed the second statement allegedly made by the defendant.

Defendant's instant motion is a repetition of the same arguments asserted and ruled upon at the hearing. Defendant claims that since the records from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Newsday indicate that sunrise on July 4, 2007, occurred at 5:28 a.m. and 5:27 respectively, the stop by Officer Ferguson of the defendant's vehicle at 5:09 a.m., was without basis. Defendant relies on Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375(2)(a) in support of her motion. Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375(2)(a) in relevant part states:

"Every motor vehicle ... driven on a public highway during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise ... shall display: (1) ... lighted head lamps ...."

Defendant contends that since Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375(2)(a) does not require the display of headlights within one-half hour before sunrise, there was no basis for Police Officer Ferguson to stop her vehicle since she was not in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant further argues that it was not dark outside at the time of the stop since it was within one-half hour before sunrise and was presumably twilight.

Firstly, this Court accepts Police Officer Ferguson's testimony that it was in fact dark outside at 5:09 a.m. on July 4, 2007. In addition, there was no testimony or evidence presented at the hearing to the contrary. Secondly, this Court finds that it was prudent and proper for Officer [*3]Ferguson to stop the defendant's vehicle. Notwithstanding the specific wording of V.T.L. Section 375(2)(a), it is obviously problematic for a vehicle to be operated on a public road, in a well populated area, in the dark, without headlights on. Not only is it dangerous for the driver, it also poses a danger to other motorists on the road, and pedestrians within the vicinity. Hence Officer Ferguson had a public safety interest in stopping the defendant's vehicle even at least to inform her, as he did, that her lights were not on. Moreover, the mere operation of a motor vehicle in the dark without headlights on generally raises suspicions regardless of the time of sunrise.

It is well established that there can be a legally valid reason for a car stop without a corresponding Vehicle and Traffic Law violation. Defendant argues that this Court's ruling expands the meaning of V.T.L. Section 375(2)(a) to include the requirement that vehicles must have their headlights on when it is dark out. To the contrary, whether the defendant in this case can be convicted after trial of a violation of V.T.L. Section 375(2)(a), is a separate matter and involves a different standard of proof. This Court is not ruling on the defendant's guilt or lack of guilt of violating V.T.L. Section 375(2)(a), since such determination is beyond the scope of the hearing. This Court is ruling that there was a legally valid basis for the stop of the defendant's vehicle. Although defendant raises an interesting technical argument, the adoption by this Court of same would essentially require Police Officers to consult with local sunrise/sunset charts and newspapers prior to stopping a vehicle which is traveling without headlights on in dark, thereby effectively replacing the Police Officer's common sense and eyesight with the dictates of atmospheric oceanography and the forecasted seasonal movements of the sun. This Court declines to require same.

In light of the forgoing, defendant's motion to reargue this Court's prior decision of December 17, 2007, is denied. This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the Court.

Dated: March 31, 2008

ENTER:

____________________________________

Norman St. George, District Court Judge