A New York court recently issued an opinion addressing several questions stemming from a defendant’s New York driving while intoxicated charges. Amongst several issues, the court addressed whether New York’s fellow officer rule applied to the facts of the accused’s case. According to the record, a police sergeant received a call from an off-duty police officer about a reckless driver. The sergeant did not testify as to what information he received that led him to believe that the driver’s actions were reckless. Nonetheless, the sergeant followed the driver and observed him make two turns without signaling. At that point, the officer turned on his lights and tried to stop the driver. After stopping the defendant, the sergeant contacted a fellow officer to continue the investigation.
At issue is whether the officer was justified in asking the defendant’s “second-level questions.” The fellow officer rules allow a police officer to make an arrest even without personal knowledge to establish probable cause. The law would permit this if the officer acted “upon the direction or communication with “a “fellow officer” who has sufficient information to constitute probable cause. In these cases, the officers are permitted to ask “level one” questions. These questions are non-threatening inquiries about one’s identity, address, or destination.
Courts reviewing motions to suppress stemming from the fellow officer rule must engage in the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test. This test requires courts to assess whether the information the officer acted upon is reliable. Next, the test evaluates whether the informing party possessed an “adequate basis of knowledge” for providing the information. While information received from a law enforcement officer is presumptively reliable, the People must still satisfy the second part of the test.
The critical inquiry, in this case, is whether the officer’s questions amounted to a level two inquiry. In this case, the court found that the officer’s observations permitted her to initiate level two common-law questioning. The court reasoned that based on the presumptive reliability the officer received from the sergeant, she was justified in approaching the defendant and asking questions to continue the investigation. Moreover, the officer’s investigation provided her with reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and request roadside sobriety tests. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion to preclude the statements he made to the officer upon arrest.
Have You Been Arrested for a Crime in New York?
If you have been accused of a New York criminal offense, the trusted criminal defense attorneys at Tilem & Associates, PC can help. Our attorneys have been providing New Yorkers with excellent representation during their criminal defense matters. We represent clients in their criminal cases stemming from New York DWI charges, drug and narcotics offenses, assault and battery, theft, weapon and handgun offenses, and homicide. Our attorneys have a deep-seated understanding of New York’s complex procedural and statutory laws. We use our experience to ensure that those accused of New York crimes receive the best possible representation. Contact our office at 877-377-8666 to schedule a free initial consultation with an attorney on our legal team.