Opinion
September 14, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The police were justified in stopping the vehicle which the defendant was driving because they observed him violate the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 420). There is no evidence to support the defendant's claim that the police action was prompted by racially motivated objectives. Once stopped, the police were not required to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights since a "temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda v Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436)" (People v Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746, 747) and "reasonable initial interrogation attendant [to a roadside detention] has been held to be merely investigatory" (People v Mathis, supra, at 748; see, People v Brown, 104 A.D.2d 696).
Furthermore, the police action in detaining the defendant for approximately 30 minutes was reasonable under the circumstances (see, United States v Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675; People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v White, 156 A.D.2d 741, 742). While the roadside detention was longer than that ordinarily encountered, it was caused by, among other things, the defendant's evasive answers, which gave the police reason for prolonging the stop and making further inquiries (see, People v Hicks, supra, at 241), as well as the unavoidable circumstance of a computer breakdown at the Department of Motor Vehicles, which temporarily thwarted the arresting officer's diligent efforts to ascertain relevant information.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.