DECISION AND ORDER Upon consent of the parties a Huntley/Wade, Probable Cause/Dunaway/Mapp hearing was held on July 16, 2018. The defendant is charged with violating VTL§1192.2, VTL§1192.3, VTL§1128a, VTL§1128d and VTL§306b. The relevant facts adduced at the hearing were as follows:Trooper Joseph Coppola testified that he observed a gray Cherokee Jeep traveling westbound on Southern State Parkway in the righthand lane in the Town of Babylon, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The operator put on the right turn signal and began to exit before the exit. The vehicle crossed over the fog safety hazard lines and then moved back into the right lane. The operator continued and exited the parkway. The trooper continued to follow the vehicle to observe the operation.Upon exiting the parkway, the Jeep signaled to the left and made a turn onto Belmont Avenue. It continued straight then put on the left turn signal and appeared to make a wide Uturn. The vehicle then made a left turn. He observed the driver to be a light skin male wearing a backwards cap. He observed the driver for 2-3 seconds. The trooper continued straight for approximately one-quarter of a mile before making a U-turn. He turned onto the road the operator turned. He drove around but could not locate the vehicle. The trooper pulled over to the side of the road and followed up with some paperwork.The trooper was sitting in his vehicle for about 5 minutes when he observed the Jeep pass his vehicle. He identified it as the same vehicle by the plate number. He followed the vehicle back toward the Southern State Parkway. The vehicle was operated by a female with a light skin male passenger with a backward cap. He observed the vehicle for other traffic violations while on the Southern State Parkway. He did not observe any. As the vehicle got on the Sagtikos Parkway he activated his lights.The trooper approached the vehicle and asked for the driver’s license and registration. He identified the male passenger as the operator of the vehicle previously. He had the female exit the vehicle at which time he inquired whether she was the operator of the vehicle the entire time. She indicated that the male passenger was driving and he asked her to switch at her sister’s house. The trooper identified the defendant as the passenger in the vehicle.The trooper returned to the vehicle to speak to the driver. There was an odor of alcohol in the vehicle. He observed signs of intoxication on the defendant. He had the defendant exit the vehicle. The defendant had slurred speech and blood shot watery eyes. The trooper told the defendant that he observed the vehicle on Sothern State Parkway as it exited onto Belmont Avenue. The defendant said he was operating the vehicle at the time. Upon inquiry as to whether he was drinking, the defendant said he had a glass of wine after work.Standardized field sobriety tests were administered to the defendant. The trooper stated he performed the HGN, VGN and walk and turn. The defendant showed clues of intoxication. The defendant was placed under arrest and transported to the precinct. The defendant was given his DWI refusal warnings and consented to a chemical test.At the conclusion of the hearing the issue arose as to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument. Defense counsel argued that the accusatory instrument was defective as it stated the incorrect location of alleged incident. As such the instrument was insufficient and should be dismissed. The people argued that the error was ministerial and insignificant.An accusatory instrument must state the name of the court with which it is filed and the title of the action. It must contain an accusatory part and a factual part. CPL§100.15(1). The instrument is deemed sufficient if “it substantially conforms to the requirements prescribed in section 100.15 and (b) the allegations of the factual part of the information together with those of any supporting deposition…provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of the information; and (c) Non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting deposition establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof.” CPL§100.40The accusatory instrument must provide the defendant with sufficient information regarding the charge and the conduct underlying the allegations to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. The instrument must state the nature of the charges and the manner, time and location of the offense underlying the accusations. People v. Olmo, 2 Misc.3d. 1012 (N.Y.City Crim. Ct. Bx.Cty. 2003). The standard established is one of reasonableness. U.S. v. Crulkshank, 92 U.S. 542, 568, People v. Riedd, 160 Misc.2d 733, 738 (Sup. Bx. 1993). Does the instrument reasonably allow the defendant to prepare a defense?The information in the case at bar, based on the testimony elicited at the hearing, contains the incorrect location of the incident. The incident occurred in the Town of Babylon and not in the Town of Islip. Both towns are within the County of Suffolk which is in the jurisdiction of this court. The defense does not state that the error affects the preparation of a defense in this action.The courts have held that an instrument should not be dismissed for insignificant or technical defects. “The factual allegation should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading.” People v. Olmo 2 Misc.3d. 1012 citing People v. Holder 201 WL 1725929 (App. Term 2d. and 11th) appeal denied 97 N.Y.2d 705 (2002). The instrument need only provide sufficient notice to prepare a defense. Id. If the defect is not of a substantive element of the crime charged, then the defect is not fatal. People v. Riedd at 738.The citing of the incorrect Town is more of a minor or insignificant error. Any other reading would be overly restrictive and technical. Thus, the defendant’s application to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied.Based on the credible evidence, there was probable cause for the stop. The trooper described the male operator of the Jeep as a light skin male wearing a backwards cap when he first observed the vehicle. Within 5 minutes after losing site of the Jeep he observed it again now operated by a female. The male previously observed by the trooper was a passenger in the Jeep. He identified this male as the defendant.An officer may stop a vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 476 (1982). Some articulable basis must exist for the police to stop a vehicle. A stop is “legal only pursuant to routine, nonpretextual traffic checks to enforce traffic regulations or when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle committed…a crime” People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749, 752-753 (1995). The officer must have some objective justification for the stop more than a whim or a hunch.Although there was no observable traffic infraction committed by the female operator, the trooper had reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger had committed a crime. As a result, probable cause was established to stop the vehicle.The statements made by the defendant were voluntary based on the credible evidence. The statements were not made under duress or threat of physical force. They were elicited during the investigative stage. In addition, the defendant was not under arrest at the time.Further, there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. The field sobriety tests administered showed sufficient clues based on the evidence that the defendant was intoxicated. The trooper also observed that the defendant had blood shot and watery eyes, slurred speech and an odor of alcohol on his breathe. The totality of the facts provided probable cause to arrest the defendant.According, the defendant’s motion to suppress is hereby denied.Decision Filed to be published X Yes _____NoNext court date: July 25, 2018
