People v. Morel

Summary

The Court held that the accusatory instrument was facially sufficient to charge driving while ability impaired by marijuana. Although the court could not consider a separate refusal report because it was not incorporated into the instrument, the allegations within the instrument—recent marijuana use, marijuana odor and ash, watery and bloodshot eyes, and refusal of a urine test—collectively established reasonable cause to believe defendant was impaired. The Court therefore affirmed the Appellate Term's order.