People v LeBlanc (Alphonso)

[*1] People v LeBlanc (Alphonso) 2010 NY Slip Op 51071(U) [27 Misc 3d 143(A)] Decided on June 14, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 14, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-1509 W CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Alphonso LeBlanc, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Elmsford, Westchester County (Richard J. Leone, J.), rendered May 13, 2009. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of driving while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated per se. The appeal from the judgments brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of a motion by defendant seeking the suppression of all evidence.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. After his motion seeking, among other things, the suppression of all evidence was denied, defendant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) and driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). Defendant contends on appeal that the branch of his motion seeking to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop should have been granted because the People failed to establish the constitutionality of the checkpoint at the suppression hearing, and the Justice Court improperly considered the New York State Police DWI Program Guide that was annexed to the People's post-hearing memorandum even though said document was not admitted into evidence at the hearing.

The undisputed police testimony at the hearing established that the checkpoint stop met the applicable federal and state constitutional tests of reasonableness (see
Brown v Texas, 443 US 47 [1979]; People v Abad, 98 NY2d 12 [2002]; People v Scott, 63 NY2d 518 [1984]). The checkpoint advanced a legitimate governmental interest, was not overly intrusive upon motorists, and was carried out in a neutral, nondiscretionary manner (see Michigan Dept. of State Police v Sitz, 496 US 444, 450 [1990]; People v Scott, 63 NY2d at 525). The testimony also showed that the checkpoint satisfied the specific factors of safety and lighting noted by the Court of Appeals in People v Scott (63 NY2d at 526). Moreover, without [*2]considering the documents annexed to the People's post-hearing memorandum, we find that the evidence adduced at the hearing was clearly sufficient to establish the constitutionality of the checkpoint.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 14, 2010