| People v Houghtalen |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07760 [89 AD3d 1163] |
| November 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dale G.Houghtalen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Adam R. Schumacher of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), renderedAugust 13, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.
Defendant contends that his arrest for driving while intoxicated resulted from an unlawful traffic stopby police. Police were contacted by the victim of an alleged assault, who resided with, among others,Marjorie Hall and defendant at defendant's home. The victim reported that Hall had assaulted her thatday and then left the residence and was currently riding as a passenger in defendant's vehicle. StateTrooper Lucas Anthony was familiar with these individuals since he had been summoned to defendant'sresidence a few days earlier regarding a reported domestic dispute involving Hall and anotherindividual. Anthony relayed the pertinent information to another trooper, and the troopers proceeded inseparate vehicles to near defendant's home. Shortly thereafter, the other trooper stopped the truckdriven by defendant in which Hall was a passenger. Anthony joined the other trooper and observed thatdefendant appeared intoxicated when he conversed with him. Defendant failed a field sobriety test,resulting in his arrest and subsequent indictment for, among other things, felony driving while intoxicated.His motion to suppress based upon the alleged unlawful stop was denied in a detailed decision byCounty Court. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony,specifically reserving his right to challenge on appeal the suppression [*2]ruling. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
A traffic stop by police is lawful "when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver oroccupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime" (Peoplev Spencer, 84 NY2d 749, 753 [1995], cert denied 516 US 905 [1995]; see People v Brisson, 68 AD3d 1544,1547-1548 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; People v Booker, 64 AD3d 899, 900 [2009]). Here, in addition to therelevant information about the conduct and location of Hall received from the victim, Anthony alsoknew that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Hall. Although the victim had previously giveninconsistent statements to police, this did not necessarily render her information unreliable. Anthony hadbeen to defendant's home only a few days earlier and was aware that these individuals resided together.It was reasonable to conclude that the victim would know that Hall was riding with defendant and thatthe victim would supply accurate information about their location given her contention of assaultiveconduct by Hall against her occurring that day. The police had adequate information that an occupant ofdefendant's truck had committed a crime to justify the traffic stop (see People v Howard, 19 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2005], lv denied5 NY3d 853 [2005]; People vMcCormick, 16 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 855 [2005]).
The remaining arguments have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Peters, J.P., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.