People v. Anokye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anokye

88 A.D.3d 736, 930 N.Y.2d 485

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 736 (People v. Anokye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Anokye, 88 A.D.3d 736, 930 N.Y.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Having credited the defense testimony to the effect that the taillights on the defendant’s vehicle were operating properly at all relevant times, a determination which we find is supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]), the hearing court erred in further concluding that the arresting officer acted reasonably in stopping the vehicle based on the inoperability of one of its taillights. Under the circumstances presented, the officer could not reasonably have been mistaken as to what she saw, and there was no reasonable basis for her belief that the defendant had committed a traffic infraction (see People v O’Hare, 73 AD3d 812 [2010]; cf. People v Jean-Pierre, 47 AD3d 445 [2008]; People v Johnson, 178 AD2d 549 [1991]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and the plaintiffs statements based on the unlawful [737]*737stop of the vehicle should have been granted. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Having credited the defense testimony to the effect that the taillights on the defendant’s vehicle were operating properly at all relevant times, a determination which we find is supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]), the hearing court erred in further concluding that the arresting officer acted reasonably in stopping the vehicle based on the inoperability of one of its taillights. Under the circumstances presented, the officer could not reasonably have been mistaken as to what she saw, and there was no reasonable basis for her belief that the defendant had committed a traffic infraction (see People v O’Hare, 73 AD3d 812 [2010]; cf. People v Jean-Pierre, 47 AD3d 445 [2008]; People v Johnson, 178 AD2d 549 [1991]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and the plaintiffs statements based on the unlawful [737]*737stop of the vehicle should have been granted. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 736, 930 N.Y.2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anokye-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack