You are here: / / THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY...
,

THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT POINTED QUESTIONS IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the police officer did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time defendant was asked about the contents of a bag he was carrying. The defendant answered “weed,” was frisked, and a firearm was seized. The evidence should have been suppressed:

The evidence at the suppression hearing establishes that the arresting officer was on routine patrol in what he described as a high-crime area known to be an “open air drug market,” where there had also been numerous burglaries and robberies. That officer had been a member of the police force for only a few months, and he was under the supervision of a training officer. The arresting officer testified that he observed defendant walking on a sidewalk shortly after midnight on a chilly night, with temperatures near 40 degrees, and that defendant was wearing a mask that covered the lower part of his face. The officer had not received any reports of recent crimes in the area, was not responding to any call, and did not observe defendant engage in any illegal activity. The officer pulled his patrol vehicle in front of defendant’s path of travel, exited the patrol vehicle along with the training officer, approached defendant, and asked defendant why he was wearing a mask. Defendant replied that he was walking his dog, and the unchallenged evidence at the hearing establishes that he was indeed walking a dog. * * *

Based on the evidence at the suppression hearing, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that the training officer had the requisite founded suspicion … . Thus, we conclude that the training officer’s inquiry and the subsequent frisk of defendant by the arresting officer was not a proper escalation of the level one encounter. …

We further conclude that the frisk of defendant and seizure of the gun was not justified “as having been in the interests of the officer[‘s] safety, since there was no testimony that the [arresting] officer[ ] believed defendant to be carrying a weapon . . . , and the People presented no other evidence establishing that the [arresting] officer had reason to fear for his safety” … . People v Wallace, 2020 NY Slip Op 01796, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
AIR FRESHENERS HANGING FROM REAR-VIEW MIRROR PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE JUSTIFYING VEHICLE STOP.
APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE CLAIM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING A LATE CLAIM UNDER THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT DESCRIBED (FOURTH DEPT).
Reference to Old Offense that Was Dismissed Okay in “Mental Abnormality/Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding
DEFENDANT WHO ALLOWED 16-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBOR TO WATCH PLAINTIFF’S FIVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER BY THE NEIGHBOR, THE CRIMINAL ACT SEVERED THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIGHBOR HAD WATCHED THE CHILD BEFORE WITHOUT INCIDENT, NO RED FLAGS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED HARASSMENT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE BUT DID NOT SUPPORT AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT USED THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT PUNCHED THE VICTIM WHEN THE VICTIM WAS STANDING, THE VICTIM FELL TO THE SIDEWALK, AND DEFENDANT CONTINUED TO PUNCH THE VICTIM, CAUSING THE VICTIM’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).
THE “ALLEGEDLY INCAPACITATED PERSON” (AIP) WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW GUARDIANSHIP HEARING; THE AIP’S ATTORNEY CANNOT CONSENT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN IF THE AIP IS NOT PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; COUNTY... FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER WHERE...