People v. MacKenzie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. MacKenzie

61 A.D.3d 703, 875 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedApril 7, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 703 (People v. MacKenzie) 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. MacKenzie, 61 A.D.3d 703, 875 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Bartlett, J.), dated February 4, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the results of breathalyzer tests and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, because reasonable suspicion to believe that he had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (1) was lacking (see generally Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 810 [1996]; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 414 [1975]; People v Sluszka, 15 AD3d 421, 423-424 [2005]). Accordingly, the County Court properly granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the results of the breathalyzer tests and his statements to law enforcement officials (see People v Smith, 1 AD3d 965 [2003]; Matter of Byer v Jackson, 241 AD 2d 943, 944-945 [1997]; People v Perez, 149 AD2d 344, 345 [1989]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Belen, 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 County Court, Rockland County (Bartlett, J.), dated February 4, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the results of breathalyzer tests and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, because reasonable suspicion to believe that he had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (1) was lacking (see generally Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 810 [1996]; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 414 [1975]; People v Sluszka, 15 AD3d 421, 423-424 [2005]). Accordingly, the County Court properly granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the results of the breathalyzer tests and his statements to law enforcement officials (see People v Smith, 1 AD3d 965 [2003]; Matter of Byer v Jackson, 241 AD 2d 943, 944-945 [1997]; People v Perez, 149 AD2d 344, 345 [1989]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 703, 875 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mackenzie-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack