People v. Depinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Depinto

124 A.D.3d 677, 997 N.Y.S.2d 915

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 14, 2015·No. 2014-04075·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated April 10, 2014, which, after a hearing, pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, suppressed physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that the People failed to establish that probable cause supported the defendant’s arrest for driving while intoxicated. The testimony of the arresting officer, which the Supreme Court credited, was sufficient to demonstrate that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was intoxicated and had been operating his vehicle in that state (see People v Shaffer, 95 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2012]; People v Fenger, 68 AD3d 1441, 1443 [2009]; People v Gibeau, 55 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2008]; People v Schmitt, 262 AD2d 588 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have suppressed physical evidence.

Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated April 10, 2014, which, after a hearing, pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, suppressed physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that the People failed to establish that probable cause supported the defendant’s arrest for driving while intoxicated. The testimony of the arresting officer, which the Supreme Court credited, was sufficient to demonstrate that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was intoxicated and had been operating his vehicle in that state (see People v Shaffer, 95 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2012]; People v Fenger, 68 AD3d 1441, 1443 [2009]; People v Gibeau, 55 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2008]; People v Schmitt, 262 AD2d 588 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have suppressed physical evidence.

Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Depinto, 124 A.D.3d 677, 997 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

124 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Depinto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related