People v. Culcross

DAVID D. EGAN, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Greece Town Justice Court, County of Monroe (Rogers, J.), entered February 8, 1998, convicting the defendant-appellant of driving while ability impaired, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1). The sole basis for this appeal is the lower court's finding at a pretrial suppression hearing that the police had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of defendant-appellant's car, and probable cause for his arrest, which followed the stop. After the suppression hearing was resolved against him, defendant-appellant defendant-appellant's own lane. Staying within both the speed limit and one's own lane of travel with nothing more does not justify an investigatory stop of a vehicle. It is not uncommon for a driver to weave to some extent within his lane, even when operating his car while not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As the Court of Appeals has noted "[w]e have frequently rejected the notion that behavior which is susceptible of innocent as well as culpable interpretation, will constitute probable cause * * * It is equally true that innocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand." (People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 216 [1976], supra.) Nor is this court persuaded by the People's argument that the Fourth Department has found that weaving in one's lane for less than one-half mile gives rise to reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop. 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only was the defendant observed weaving in his lane, but the police suspected that the defendant's driver's license had been revoked and, as they followed defendant's vehicle, a radio transmission confirmed their suspicions. Here the officer's sole basis for suspicion was that defendant-appellant had "swerved" twice within his own lane of travel and struck the dotted center line once with his front tire. This court thus finds the stop was unlawful. To the extent the People v Ellis decision (169 AD2d 838 [2d Dept 1991]) is opposite, this court declines to follow it. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress unlawfully seized evidence is reversed, and this matter remanded to that court for proceedings in keeping with this decision.