Summary
In People v Beckwith (163 AD2d 863 [4th Dept 1990]), relied upon by the District Attorney, not only was the defendant observed weaving in his lane, but the police suspected that the defendant's driver's license had been revoked and, as they followed defendant's vehicle, a radio transmission confirmed their suspicions.
Summary of this case from People v. CulcrossOpinion
July 13, 1990
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Henry, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People failed to establish reasonable cause for the stop of his automobile prior to his arrest on charges of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. We disagree. The police suspected that defendant's driver's license had been revoked and, as they followed defendant's vehicle, that information was confirmed by radio transmission. Defendant's vehicle was also observed weaving in its lane. The stop was thus properly based upon specific and articulable facts which reasonably warranted the intrusion (see, People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413). Defendant's claim that the People were required to present the testimony of the officer who transmitted the radio broadcast is unpreserved (see, People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 416; People v Weston, 56 N.Y.2d 844; People v. Jenkins, 47 N.Y.2d 722) and without merit (see, People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369, 376-377; People v. Mack, 26 N.Y.2d 311, 315-317, cert denied 400 U.S. 960; People v. Knight, 162 A.D.2d 970; People v. Buckley, 147 A.D.2d 898, affd 75 N.Y.2d 843).