Saturday, January 10, 2009

Drug Evidence Suppressed Because of Illegal Traffic Stop

A decision came down from the NY Supreme Court 3rd Department Appellate Divison last Thursday upholding a lower court's decision suppressing the evidence of a substantial amount of drugs discovered as the result of a traffic stop. Because the court deemed the traffic stop as illegal, or more specifically, because the police did not have "reasonable suspicion" to pull the defendant over, the resulting evidence must be suppressed, or banned from use at trial. The defendant, Matthew Davis, was initially indicted and charged in Schenectady County Court with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Second Degree, and violating New York Vehicle and Traffic law §1128(a).

Without this evidence, the people have no case and the defendant walks. The drugs suppressed in this case included a large amount of marijuana and "nine bags of hallucinogenic mushrooms". The defendant in this case, Matthew Davis, was described by on lookers as "skipping" out the court house door upon hearing the good news. Local famous attorney Terrence Kindlon's office handled the appeal and I'm assuming was Davis's trial lawyer as well. (Terrence Kindlon was Christopher Porco's lawyer)

As a traffic lawyer, this decision caught my attention because it includes a discussion about New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law §1128(a). I'm going to call this the "swerving statute". This particular traffic infraction lays the foundation for many DWI arrests as the police often pull drunk drivers over after observing them violating this law. NY VTL §1128(a) states "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety." In this case, the arresting officer testified that he observed Matthew's vehicle briefly contacting the fog line. I've often heard police call this "hitting" the line.

Matthew's argued that he did not violate the statute because his tire never went over the line, only in to the line. Because New York courts have never directly addressed the issue of "hitting" the line as the sole basis for a traffic stop, the court looked at the way other States interpret their similarly worded statutes and noted variations, ultimately concluding that merely encroaching in to the line, without crossing it, cannot by itself be construed as a violation of NY VTL §1128(a).

The Court held:

Here, we decline to hold that fog line encroachment can never be the basis for a valid traffic stop as a matter of law. However, in this case, we are mindful that [the police officer] only testified as to brief contacts with the fog line prior to the stop. He did not indicate that, for example, defendant was weaving, driving erratically or even that he drove onto the shoulder of the road.

People v. Davis

So a prima facie case for violating NY VTL 1128(a) in cases where the driver merely "hits" the line must include evidence that the driver was "weaving" or "driving erratically".

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is such an interesting story at it gives in-depth information to the reader as well. Good thing you have it shared. <a href=