You are here: / / PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, explained the analytical criteria for a pat-down search of defendant’s person after a vehicle stop:

“In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . However, a police officer’s questions regarding whether an individual has a weapon is a common-law inquiry which must be supported by founded suspicion … . In addition, a pat-down search of a suspect’s outer clothing is reasonable and constitutionally permissible when an officer observes facts and circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed or poses a threat to his or her safety … . Among the factors relevant to determining whether a pat-down search is justified are “the substance and reliability of the report that brought the officers to the scene, the nature of the crime that the police are investigating, the suspect’s behavior and the shape, size, and location of any bulges in the suspect’s clothing” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including, among other things, the time of night, the fact that the livery cab in which the defendant was a passenger was speeding, the neighborhood, the officer’s observations of the defendant make what he interpreted as a furtive movement indicating that he was hiding something, the defendant’s refusal to answer questions or look at the officer in comparison to the other passenger’s animated responses, and the abnormal bulge in an unusual spot near the defendant’s groin, the officer was justified in inquiring about the bulge and performing the minimally intrusive measure of touching the bulge to verify that it was, in fact, a gun and not, as the defendant stated, cash … . People v Graves, 2016 NY Slip Op 05763, 2nd Dept 8-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/VEHICLE STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, (PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION NOT WARRANTED IN THIS LEASE-TERMINATION CASE, PLAINTIFF NIGHTCLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS WILLINGNESS TO CURE AN ALLEGED NOISE-LEVEL VIOLATION OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THE 91-YEAR-OLD PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTINUOUS CARE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THE JUDGE TOLD HIM NOT TO DISCUSS HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING A TWO-DAY ADJOURNMENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL-SUFFICIENCY AND RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD EXPIRED SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE BANK UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATION WITH DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE DEBT HAD NEVER BEEN ACCELERATED; CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ACCELERATION OF A MORTGAGE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).
Three-Step Analysis for Child Support Under Child Support Standards Act

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CRITERIA FOR ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT... JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE...