THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLANT v. WILLIAM BALL DEFENDANT RESPONDENT (2015)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM K. BALL, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

KA 14–01814

Decided: October 02, 2015

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT. MARK D. GROSSMAN, NIAGARA FALLS (LEONARD G. TILNEY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the indictment is dismissed.

Memorandum: The People appeal from an order granting defendant's motion to suppress his statements to the police and certain physical evidence recovered after his vehicle was pulled over on the suspicion that he was driving while intoxicated. We affirm. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court's determination that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle was “clearly erroneous” (People v. Kelley, 91 AD3d 1318, 1318, lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v. Jones, 9 AD3d 837, 838–839, lv denied 3 NY3d 708, reconsideration denied 4 NY3d 745). Moreover, because the granting of defendant's motion resulted in the suppression of all evidence of the crimes with which defendant was charged, the indictment must be dismissed (see People v. East, 52 AD3d 1248, 1248, lv denied 11 NY3d 736).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

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Out of date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