You are here: / / TRAFFIC STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION DESPITE THE DMV COMPUTER...

TRAFFIC STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION DESPITE THE DMV COMPUTER IMPOUNDMENT RECORD’S CAUTIONARY STATEMENT THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED STOLEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion even though the DMV impoundment record indicated the vehicle was not stolen:

Here, a New York State Trooper properly stopped the vehicle defendant was driving based on his check of Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) computer records for the vehicle’s license plate number, which revealed that the car had been impounded and thus should have been located in an impound lot … . …

Our dissenting colleagues conclude that the Trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle because the Trooper disregarded cautionary language in the DMV impoundment record stating that it “should not be treated as a stolen vehicle hit[, and] [n]o further action should be taken based solely upon this impounded response.” We conclude, however, that the Trooper’s testimony that the cautionary language was “generic,” inasmuch as it even “comes up with stolen vehicles,” and that, based on his experience, he interpreted the impoundment record as requiring him to conduct a further investigation because the vehicle “should not be out on the road,” establishes that the stop was not unreasonable. Rather, we conclude that the impoundment record, coupled with the Trooper’s explanation of its import, provided reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. In disregarding the Trooper’s explanation that the cautionary language was “generic,” the dissent would obligate us to find unreasonable any stops where that same message appears, irrespective of the facts surrounding the stop. We reject such a categorical determination. People v Hinshaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 02252, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

You might also like
LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE OWNER DOES NOT RESIDE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A REGULATORY TAKING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT IN HIS BACKYARD AND AT THE HOSPITAL WAS INVESTIGATORY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THERE WAS A DETAILED, FACT-SPECIFIC DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME WHEN THEY BLOCKED DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH THE POLICE VEHICLE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE; PLEA VACATED AND SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED GRAND JURY REPORTS RE: THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, NONFEASANCE OR NEGLECT IN OFFICE OF THREE PUBLIC OFFICIALS; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ DUTIES (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, REQUESTING MEDICAL RECORDS AND MEETING WITH AN ATTORNEY TO EXPLORE A MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE THE TERMINATION OF TREATMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER’S ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO FATHER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN FATHER’S ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Questions About Whether Trial Judge Properly Handled Jury Notes Sent Out During Deliberations Required Reconstruction Hearing

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE,... HEARING NECESSARY ON THAT ASPECT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT...