PEOPLE v. JIMENEZ (2022)

Judgment of conviction (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered December 8, 2014, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, since he had been speeding before running through two red lights, had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and admitted that he was “coming from a party” and had “a couple of beers” (see People v Dudley, 169 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1068 [2019]; People v Vargas, 123 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2014]; People v Thomas, 68 AD3d 482, 483 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010]). The record also supports the finding that the aforementioned statements, made as defendant stepped out of the vehicle, as requested by the officers, were spontaneous, freely volunteered utterances that were unprompted by any police interrogation or the functional equivalent thereof, and, as such, were admissible (see People v Hightower, 154 AD3d 636 [2017]; People v Mitchell, 149 AD3d 653, 654 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1131 [2017]; People v Grant, 96 AD3d 779, 780 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the People's burden at a hearing generally does not extend to calling additional witnesses, specifically the arresting officer's partner, merely to rule out theoretical bases for suppression that lack any “bona fide factual predicate” (People v Witherspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974 [1985]; see People v Morales, 77 AD3d 482 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 954 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur