People v. LaFountain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. LaFountain

283 A.D.2d 1013, 725 N.Y.S.2d 249, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643

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

DecidedMay 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 1013 (People v. LaFountain) 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. LaFountain, 283 A.D.2d 1013, 725 N.Y.S.2d 249, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly determined that the roadblock conducted by the State Police to detect persons who were driving while intoxicated was a permissible seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (see generally, People v Scott, 63 NY2d 518). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his vehicle was stopped “pursuant to a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory and uniform procedure, involving the stop of all vehicles” approaching the roadblock [1014]*1014(People v John BB., 56 NY2d 482, 488, cert denied 459 US 1010). The Troopers were given explicit verbal instructions on the procedures to be used at the roadblock, including the nature of the questions to be asked of every motorist. Those instructions “afforded little discretion to operating personnel” (People v Scott, supra, at 526). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly determined that the roadblock conducted by the State Police to detect persons who were driving while intoxicated was a permissible seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (see generally, People v Scott, 63 NY2d 518). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his vehicle was stopped “pursuant to a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory and uniform procedure, involving the stop of all vehicles” approaching the roadblock [1014]*1014(People v John BB., 56 NY2d 482, 488, cert denied 459 US 1010). The Troopers were given explicit verbal instructions on the procedures to be used at the roadblock, including the nature of the questions to be asked of every motorist. Those instructions “afforded little discretion to operating personnel” (People v Scott, supra, at 526). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 1013, 725 N.Y.S.2d 249, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lafountain-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack