The Defendant, Andrew Marshall, is charged with common law Driving While Intoxicated, Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(3), Refusal to Take a Field Breath Screen Test (VTL §1194[1][b]), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree (VTL §511[1A]) and Moving From Lane Unsafely (VTL §1128A). The Defense moves to suppress evidence alleging lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop, lack of probable cause for the arrest, and suppression of statements as being both fruit of the poisonous tree and involuntary. The Court held a Suppression hearing on this matter on October 6, 2014. Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

This Court previously ruled from the bench at the close of evidence on October 6, 2014 that Officer Barry Banfield possessed probable cause to arrest the Defendant for Driving while Ability Impaired, Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(1), based upon the totality of the circumstances including the Defendant's failure of four out of five Field Sobriety Tests. Defendant failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), walk and turn, one leg stand, and [*2]Romberg balance tests. Defendant did pass the Finger to Nose test. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979). The Court also previously ruled that all of Defendant's statements made during the traffic stop and during performance of the field sobriety tests were non-custodial and in response to the officer's brief and reasonable investigation and therefore are admissible at trial. See People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965). See also, People v. Smith, 89 AD3d 1126 (3rd Dept 2011).

suspicion" standard or Robinson's "probable cause" standard for traffic stops based upon VTL violations?