You are here: / / CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE...

CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined there was probable cause for the stop in this DWI case. Defendant was observed the deputy driving in the oncoming traffic lane for two tenths of a mile:

We agree with the People that the stop was based on probable cause and thus that County Court erred in granting that part of defendant’s motion seeking suppression. The arresting deputy testified at the Dunaway hearing that he personally observed defendant’s vehicle cross the center line and proceed into the lane for oncoming traffic. The vehicle remained in that lane for approximately two-tenths of a mile, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 (a). Thus, the deputy, having personally observed the violation, had probable cause to stop the vehicle … . Once the deputy effectuated the stop, he noticed that defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and he smelled the strong odor of alcohol on her breath. He conducted a series of field sobriety tests, all of which defendant failed. Thus, the deputy had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated ,,, , People v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01059, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED)/VEHICLE STOPS (CROSSING THE CENTER LINE AND TRAVELING IN THE ONCOMING LANE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP, GRANT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS REVERSED)

You might also like
ORDER ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL TWO SEX OFFENDER WAS DEFECTIVE; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Persistent Felony Offender Statute Does Not Require Prior Felonies to be Equivalent to New York Felonies
ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNTING WAS NOT TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
No Basis in Law for “Automatic Override” Based Upon a Prior Sex Crime Conviction to Raise Sex Offender Status Above the Presumptive Level (SORA)
ROBBERY THIRD AND ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF ROBBERY SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).
Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)
THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT RESTRICT THE SEARCH TO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR CRIME AND DID NOT INCORPORATE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTEDLY LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE; THE WARRANT DID NOT MEET THE “PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT” (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER... AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER...