People v. Holstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holstein

154 A.D.2d 905, 545 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12879

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Holstein) 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. Holstein, 154 A.D.2d 905, 545 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: At approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 2, 1986, a Batavia police officer received a radio report that a citizen had observed that a motorcycle was tipped over against a curb at the intersection of Bank Street and Washington Avenue, that a person was seen sitting on the curb and that a motorcyclist’s helmet was lying on the road. The officer was directed to respond and to investigate a possible accident. Upon arriving at the scene, he observed defendant approaching the intersection on a motorcycle, traveling at a speed of 10 to 15 miles per hour. The speed limit for the area was 30 miles per hour. The officer stopped defendant to inquire of his well-being and detected a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant was unable to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested. He was later convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3]) and driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3], [5]).

The stop of defendant was proper. "All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity” (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 420). "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’ (Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 21, supra)” (People v Ingle, supra, at 420; see also, People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 405).

Here, the officer received a report of a possible motorcycle accident at a specific place. Having observed defendant in the vicinity traveling on a motorcycle at a very slow rate of speed, the officer had a reasonable basis for stopping and making inquiry of defendant. On these facts, "the momentary inconvenience inevitable in this police confrontation cannot be said to be unreasonable” (People v John BB., 56 NY2d 482, 488, cert denied 459 US 1010). (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — felony driving while intoxicated.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: At approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 2, 1986, a Batavia police officer received a radio report that a citizen had observed that a motorcycle was tipped over against a curb at the intersection of Bank Street and Washington Avenue, that a person was seen sitting on the curb and that a motorcyclist’s helmet was lying on the road. The officer was directed to respond and to investigate a possible accident. Upon arriving at the scene, he observed defendant approaching the intersection on a motorcycle, traveling at a speed of 10 to 15 miles per hour. The speed limit for the area was 30 miles per hour. The officer stopped defendant to inquire of his well-being and detected a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant was unable to perform field sobriety tests and was arrested. He was later convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3]) and driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3], [5]).

The stop of defendant was proper. "All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity” (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 420). "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’ (Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 21, supra)” (People v Ingle, supra, at 420; see also, People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 405).

Here, the officer received a report of a possible motorcycle accident at a specific place. Having observed defendant in the vicinity traveling on a motorcycle at a very slow rate of speed, the officer had a reasonable basis for stopping and making inquiry of defendant. On these facts, "the momentary inconvenience inevitable in this police confrontation cannot be said to be unreasonable” (People v John BB., 56 NY2d 482, 488, cert denied 459 US 1010). (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — felony driving while intoxicated.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 905, 545 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holstein-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack