PEOPLE v. FRAZIER (2008)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.27[1][a][vi];  [b] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized by the police from the vehicle in which he was a passenger.  We reject that contention.  The police officer who stopped the vehicle testified at the suppression hearing that she stopped the vehicle based on her observation that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229–c (3).  The court's determination to credit the testimony that the stop was based on a traffic violation is entitled to great deference (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380;  People v. Lebron, 184 A.D.2d 784, 585 N.Y.S.2d 498), and the officer's primary motivation for the stop is irrelevant (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 350, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638).  In any event, the court also properly determined that the People established that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that at least one of the vehicle's occupants had been involved in a crime and thus was justified in stopping the vehicle on that ground as well (see People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749, 752–753, 622 N.Y.S.2d 483, 646 N.E.2d 785, cert. denied 516 U.S. 905, 116 S.Ct. 271, 133 L.Ed.2d 192;  see generally People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 238, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861).  Finally, defendant contends that he was denied due process because the police did not electronically record his interrogation.  We reject that contention (see People v. Davis, 48 A.D.3d 1086, 850 N.Y.S.2d 307;  People v. Vought, 45 A.D.3d 1247, 1248–1249, 844 N.Y.S.2d 815, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 817, 857 N.Y.S.2d 51, 886 N.E.2d 816).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: