| People v Weishaupt |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04259 [118 AD3d 1100] |
| June 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRichard Weishaupt Jr., Appellant. |
Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), forappellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Paul DerOhannesian of counsel),for respondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeals from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County(Williams, J.), rendered August 20, 2010, (1) upon a verdict convicting defendant of thecrimes of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny and endangering the welfare of achild, and (2) convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of making anapparently sworn false statement in the first degree.
Police officer Travis Nissen received a dispatch call regarding a suspicious blacksport utility vehicle (hereinafter SUV) towing an empty trailer near a dirt access roadleading to private property. Nissen responded to the area but did not see an SUV or anysuspicious activity. Soon after he left, he received a call from another officer indicatingthat the black SUV was heading back to the main road near the access road with a loadedtrailer. Nissen headed back in the direction of the access road. He observed a black SUVwith a trailer full of chairs. The SUV was missing a front license plate and the trailer hadno license plate. Nissen stopped the vehicle, which was driven by defendant andoccupied by his teenaged son. Upon questioning, defendant could not produce a driver'slicense or vehicle registration, denied being on the subject property, and stated that thechairs belonged to him and came from his property, but he could not explain why thevehicle and trailer were muddy and wet. Defendant agreed to go to the police station forquestioning. Nissen drove him there in a police car.
[*2] At the station, a detective read defendant hisMiranda rights, which defendant waived. After about 10 minutes of questioning,the detective went to the SUV, observed the lack of a plate on the trailer, the missingfront license plate on the SUV, 36 chairs on the trailer, and dirt and mud on the SUV andtrailer. The detective then went on the access road to the subject property, where heobserved tire tracks that allegedly matched the tires on the trailer. Additionally, heobserved fresh muddy footprints along a path and inside a building. That building alsocontained chairs that matched the ones on the trailer. Upon returning to the station, thedetective asked defendant for his sneakers and defendant gave them to him.
In December 2008, defendant was charged in an indictment with burglary in the thirddegree, petit larceny and endangering the welfare of a child. In September 2009, he wascharged in a separate indictment with making an apparently sworn false statement in thefirst degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. Following a hearing ondefendant's motion to suppress his statements and any physical evidence seized fromhim, County Court denied the motion. After a trial on the December 2008 indictment, ajury found him guilty of all counts. Defendant then pleaded guilty to making anapparently sworn false statement in the first degree in satisfaction of the September 2009indictment, on the condition that his sentence run concurrently with his sentence on theother indictment. County Court imposed concurrent sentences of 2
We affirm. "Factual determinations of the suppression court are entitled to greatweight and will not be overturned unless clearly contrary to the evidence, taking intoconsideration the court's credibility determinations" (People v Muniz, 12 AD3d 937, 938 [2004] [citationsomitted]; see People vWilliams, 25 AD3d 927, 928 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 840 [2006]).Police may validly stop a vehicle based on probable cause that the driver committed atraffic violation, regardless of the officer's underlying motivation or desire to conductanother investigation (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 349-350 [2001]; People v Issac, 107 AD3d1055, 1057 [2013]; Peoplev Ross, 106 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1090 [2014]).Here, Nissen had probable cause to believe that defendant committed a traffic violationdue to the lack of license plates on the front of the SUV and on the trailer (seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1], [3]; People v Lightner, 56 AD3d 1274, 1274 [2008], lvdismissed 12 NY3d 760 [2009]). The otherwise lawful traffic stop was not renderedillegal merely because the officer did not ultimately issue defendant any traffic tickets(see People v Ross, 106 AD3d at 1195); traffic violations may seeminconsequential when the driver is later found to have been involved in more seriouscriminal activity. Nissen's initial roadside questioning, which was investigatory in nature,did not need to be preceded by Miranda warnings because it was noncustodial(see People v Coffey, 107AD3d 1047, 1050 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 [2013]). Therefore,defendant's statements in response to that questioning were admissible.
County Court found that defendant voluntarily agreed to accompany the police to thestation. That finding is supported by the lack of handcuffs and defendant's placement inan unsecured area once he arrived at the station. Additionally, defendant needed to bedriven in a police vehicle because he did not produce a driver's license that would permithim to drive himself. The detective testified that defendant waived his Mirandarights, and the People submitted a signed form indicating such waiver. Thus, defendant'sstatements to the detective were admissible.
[*3] The police had probable cause to arrest defendant. The hearing record containsproof that defendant was seen driving the SUV with an empty trailer near the subjectproperty, the SUV was not seen on the public road shortly thereafter, then the SUV wasseen on the road again, but the trailer was loaded with chairs that matched ones locatedon the subject property. The muddy access road contained tire tracks that were similar tothe trailer tires, the SUV and trailer were covered with mud, defendant's clothes weremuddy, and fresh muddy footprints were inside the building containing chairs similar tothe ones loaded on the trailer. Defendant denied being on the subject property, and hisstory about the chairs was inconsistent with the evidence. As the police had probablecause to arrest defendant, they then had the authority to seize defendant's sneakersincident to a lawful arrest (seePeople v Clinkscales, 83 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d815 [2011]; People vKindred, 60 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 926 [2009]).Thus, County Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.
Peters, P.J., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.