You are here: / / PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S...
,

PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the search of defendant’s person after traffic stop was not supported by proof of a valid warrant for defendant’s arrest. Defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by a sheriff’s deputy. The driver was arrested for driving without a license. The deputy then checked the defendant’s “data” and found defendant did not have a license and  there was a warrant for defendant. The defendant was then taken into custody on the warrant and cocaine was found in a pat-down search. The People did not demonstrate that the warrant was valid at the time of the arrest. County Court ruled the search was a valid “safety pat-down” before placing defendant in the police car:

​

We agree with defendant that the court erred in upholding the search on the ground that it was a lawful “safety pat-down.” There was no evidence in the record of the hearing to support a conclusion that “defendant had a weapon or was a threat to [the deputy’s] safety” … . Moreover, “[a]lthough a police officer may reasonably pat down a person before he [or she] places [that person] in the back of a police vehicle, the legitimacy of that procedure depends on the legitimacy of placing [the person] in the police car in the first place” … . Here, the People failed to establish the legitimacy of placing defendant in the patrol vehicle. First, the People failed to establish “the existence of a validly-issued and outstanding warrant” … . Once defendant challenged the validity of the warrant by questioning the deputy concerning the status of the warrant and whether it was still valid, the People were “required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the . . . warrant” (id.). The People did not do so. Thus, without establishing the existence of a valid and outstanding warrant, the People failed to establish the legitimacy of placing defendant in the patrol vehicle … . Although defendant, who did not have a valid driver’s license, could not have driven the stopped vehicle from the scene after the arrest of the driver, the deputy testified that, in the absence of a warrant, defendant could have called for someone to pick him up and therefore could have lawfully refused to be transported away from the scene in the patrol vehicle. People v Richards, 2017 NY Slip Op 04668, 4th Dept 6-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PAT-DOWN SEARCH, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

You might also like
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL OF THE ORAL APPLICATION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL MOTION ON NOTICE WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER REMOVING THE FLASHING AND CAULKING AROUND A SECOND-STORY WINDOW, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO LOWER THE LIFT TO THE GROUND TO GO THE BATHROOM; THE UNSECURED WINDOW FELL ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR FLOOD INSURANCE (WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE POLICY) SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE EVIDENCE OF ESCAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT YET IN CUSTODY WHEN HE DROVE AWAY AS A POLICE OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO PULL HIM FROM HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TOWN WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiffs Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 USC 1988—Criteria Explained

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

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITHOUT... DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD A HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED,...