Impaired driving charges dismissed for lack of evidence

Webster Town Justice Thomas J. DiSalvo has dismissed impaired driving charges because of insufficient evidence.

Defendant Premdat Motieram was charged in the early morning of July 19 with driving while impaired by drugs [VTL § 1192 (4)] and driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs [VTL 1192 (4-a)].

Motieram’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the accusatory instruments were insufficient.

According to DiSalvo’s decision, Webster Police responded after a fast-food restaurant manager called 911.

According to the manager, Motieram tried to enter the restaurant about 11 p.m., but he was told the lobby was closed and he was “directed out of the premises,” according to DiSalvo’s decision.

Security camera footage showed a vehicle passing through the drive-through lane without ordering anything. The vehicle then backed up to the drive-through window area, hitting the curb three times, according to the decision.

Eventually, the manager took the driver’s order, and the driver of the vehicle proceeded to the payment window and paid for the food.

In a supporting deposition, the manager stated: “I observed the male (driver) to be a bald Hispanic male. I observed the male to appear to be out of it and seemed off. The vehicle continued to move forward and backwards multiple times, almost striking the vehicle behind him. I then contacted the police.”

No additional identification of the driver of the vehicle was provided by the witness.

In his deposition, Webster Police Officer John Storer stated that he saw Motieram behind the wheel of the vehicle, while the keys were in the ignition, and the engine was running. He also stated that he saw Motiram driving the vehicle.

Storer stated in the deposition that Motieram had “glassy eyes, impaired speech, and impaired motor coordination.”

He also stated that Motieram performed various roadside field tests and Motieram’s performance on the tests was recorded on a “a note card attached,” but no such card was included with the deposition, DiSalvo wrote.

Motieram refused to submit to a breath test, so a drug recognition expert was called to evaluate him, but no results of the evaluation were provided to the court.

“In this case the accusatory instruments fail to provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant was operating his vehicle under the influence of a drug listed in the Public Health Law, was impaired by the consumption of alcohol, or was suffering some medical or psychological condition,” DiSalvo wrote.

“Nor did they set out any non-hearsay allegations setting out each element of the offense charged. The information did not provide any specific allegations regarding blood tests, roadside tests, or allegations in a supporting deposition by a drug recognition expert,” he wrote.

DiSalvo ruled that the allegations “were incomplete, speculative and conclusory in nature.”

“Thus, the information charging the defendant with driving while ability impaired by drugs is dismissed,” DiSalvo ruled.

“There are no non-hearsay allegations in either of the supporting depositions that allege the defendant was under the combined influence of drugs and/or alcohol,” he wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035