PEOPLE v. AUGUSTINO (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael D'AUGUSTINO, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: May 10, 2000

PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT and BALIO, JJ.

John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for defendant-appellant. John G. Herriman, Canandaigua, for plaintiff-respondent.

County Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion following a hearing. The court's findings are afforded great weight (see, People v. Earley, 244 A.D.2d 769, 770, 666 N.Y.S.2d 223) and are supported by the record (see, People v. Mena-Coss, 210 A.D.2d 745, 746, 620 N.Y.S.2d 547, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 798, 632 N.Y.S.2d 511, 656 N.E.2d 610; People v. Greenberg, 187 A.D.2d 528, 529, 589 N.Y.S.2d 597, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 971, 598 N.Y.S.2d 772, 615 N.E.2d 229). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his physical appearance and admitted drinking, together with his inability to pass sobriety tests, provided the arresting officer with probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated (see, People v. Schmitt, 262 A.D.2d 588, 692 N.Y.S.2d 656, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 829, 702 N.Y.S.2d 599, 724 N.E.2d 391; People v. Tittensor, 244 A.D.2d 784, 784-785, 666 N.Y.S.2d 267; People v. Schroeder, 229 A.D.2d 917, 645 N.Y.S.2d 217).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network