People v. Boyd

68 A.D.3d 889, 889 N.Y.2d 490
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that the police did not have probable cause to stop his car is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not raise this claim at the suppression hearing (see People v McNair, 45 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Rogers, 34 AD3d 504 [2006]). In any event, the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was lawful. ‘[A]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred’ ” (People v Sluszka, 15 AD3d 421, 423 [2005], quoting People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 348-349 [2001]). The police officer’s testimony established that he had probable cause to stop the defendant after he observed the defendant driving through a red light (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111). Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Boyd, 68 A.D.3d 889, 889 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 889 (People v. Boyd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Johnson
83 A.D.3d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)