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
Use of an Address to Which the Respondent Was in the Process of Moving Did Not Constitute a False Statement within the Meaning of the Election Law
Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police Misconduct
Commercial Property Overvalued—Evidentiary Criteria Explained In Some Depth
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER INSTEAD OF THE SCISSORS LIFT CREATED THE SAFETY ISSUE LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE OPERATOR OF THE SCISSORS LIFT WOULD NOT ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ACCESS IT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED.
Absentee Landlord Granted Summary Judgment in Lead-Paint Exposure Case—No Constructive Notice
CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S RULING, THE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE A CLAUSE LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S REMEDY FOR A BREACH TO RETAINING THE DEPOSIT (FOURTH DEPT).

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,...