| People v Gibbs |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08875 [167 AD3d 1580] |
| December 21, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Johnathon W. Gibbs, Appellant. |
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, Trevett Cristo P.C. (Eric M. Dolan ofcounsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Joseph R. Plukas of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John L. DeMarco, J.), rendered June19, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of driving while abilityimpaired and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict ofdriving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) and aggravatedunlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511 [3] [a] [i]).Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statement to the policeand evidence that was seized by the police inasmuch as the arresting officer did not haveprobable cause to stop the vehicle that he was driving. We reject that contention. A traffic stop islawful "when 'a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of an automobile hascommitted a traffic violation' " (People v Guthrie, 25 NY3d 130, 133 [2015], rearg denied25 NY3d 1191 [2015]). Here, the officer testified at the probable cause hearing that he stoppedthe vehicle at approximately 9:00 p.m. on July 15, 2012, because it did not have a working rearlicense plate lamp, which was a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a)(4) (see People v Williams, 132AD3d 1155, 1155-1156 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1157 [2016]; People v Hale, 130 AD3d 1540,1540 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1088 [2015], denied reconsideration 27NY3d 998 [2016]). Defendant contends that there was no violation of section 375 (2) (a) (4)because the stop occurred less than one-half hour after sunset, which occurred at 8:48 p.m. Thestatute, however, requires that a rear license plate be illuminated "during the period from one-halfhour after sunset . . . and at such other times as visibility for a distance of[1,000] feet ahead of such motor vehicle is not clear" (§ 375 [2] [a] [emphasisadded]). The officer's testimony that it was "dark" outside established that he had probable causeto believe that defendant violated section 375 (2) (a) (4) and therefore had " 'a reasonablebasis to effectuate a [traffic] stop' " (Guthrie, 25 NY3d at 133).Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Curran and Winslow, JJ.