You are here: / / THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER...
,

THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger. The seized evidence should have been suppressed. The officer who stopped the car had heard gunshots, drove in the direction of the shots, passed two intersecting streets, and then saw defendant’s car moving slowly:

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” here … , we conclude that the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct … . As noted, the People established that the police stopped the vehicle less than two minutes after hearing the shots fired, the incident occurred in the early morning hours, the police did not see any pedestrian or vehicular traffic other than the subject vehicle after the shots were fired, and the vehicle was found in proximity to the location of the shots fired. The police, however, were not given a description of the vehicle involved or even informed whether there was a vehicle involved … , the officer did not give any testimony regarding whether he saw any pedestrian or vehicle traffic before hearing the shots fired … , and the vehicle was not fleeing from the area where shots were fired … . Rather, the subject vehicle was simply a vehicle that was in the general vicinity of the area where shots were heard … . As the officer correctly recognized, the police had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to justify a common-law right to inquire … , but they did not have the required reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure of the vehicle. People v Fitts, 2020 NY Slip Op 06654, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE POLICE IN THIS STREET STOP CASE MAY HAVE HAD CAUSE FOR A LEVEL ONE INQUIRY (A CAN IN A PAPER BAG), THEY IMMEDIATELY ENGAGED IN LEVEL TWO INVASIVE QUESTIONING FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE OPEN CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET; THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS HELD BUT SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE A RULING; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED AGAIN FOR THE RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION WITHOUT AFFORDING THE RESPONDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR.
“Patient/Visitor Occurrence Report” Not Statutorily Privileged in Malpractice Action Against Hospital
Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)
FALL WHILE UNLOADING A FLATBED TRUCK CAN BE A COVERED ACTIVITY AND INVOLVED AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK; INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION FIRST ASSERTED IN OPPOSITION PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

50% FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP... THE ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STOP AND...