PEOPLE v. STUART (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), and driving without a license (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1]). He moved to, among other things, suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities. After a hearing, the Criminal Court denied the branch of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statements. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (common law).

There was no error in the Criminal Court's denial of the branch of defendant's motion seeking to suppress certain statements he made at the scene to the arresting officer, as defendant was not in custody when he was asked if he had been drinking. Since individuals who are temporarily detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop are not considered to be in custody for the purposes of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436, 479 [1966]), defendant's roadside detention cannot be deemed custodial (see People v Brown, 107 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2013]; People v Dougal, 266 AD2d 574 [1999]; People v Mathis, 136 AD2d 746, 747 [1988]).

Defense counsel provided defendant with meaningful representation in accordance with the New York State standard (see NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 155-156 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1988]) and the effective assistance of counsel under the federal standard (see US Const 6th Amend; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.