You are here: / / THE DE BOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, NOT THE TRAFFIC STOP REQUIREMENTS,...

THE DE BOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, NOT THE TRAFFIC STOP REQUIREMENTS, APPLY TO THE APPROACH OF A PERSON IN A STATIONARY CAR WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that a police officer (Meskill) approaching a person in a parked car is subject to the De Bour requirements for a street stop, not a traffic stop:

With respect to the initial encounter, unlike a stop of a moving vehicle — which must be based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity … or probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred  … — “[a] police approach to an occupied, stationary vehicle is subject to the first level of the De Bour analysis” and is justified if “supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality” … . There is no dispute here that Meskill was authorized to approach defendant’s vehicle in response to a citizen-requested welfare check upon observing him slumped over with the engine running. People v Spradlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 06982, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SHED WHICH WAS BEING TRANSPORTED AS AN OVERSIZED LOAD; AN EMPLOYER WHICH HIRES AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WILL GENERALLY NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR IS TASKED WITH AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” TRANSPORTING AN OVERSIZED LOAD BY TRUCK IS NOT AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE TRUCK DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL, NEW HEARING REQUIRED.
Criteria for a Legal Malpractice Action Re: the Attorney’s Performance In a Criminal Trial Explained—Here Plaintiff’s Conviction Was Reversed and Plaintiff Made a Colorable Claim of Innocence
HERE AN ATTORNEY AND A CONTRACTOR WERE BUSINESS PARTNERS FOR YEARS AND RELIED ON EACH OTHER’S UNIQUE EXPERTISE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ATTORNEY BREACHED A FIDUCIARY DUTY BY TRANSFORMING THE PARTNERSHIP TO AN LLC WITHOUT INFORMING HIS FORMER PARTNER HE COULD NOT UNILATERALLY WITHDRAW FROM THE LLC; HERE THE CRITERIA FOR A STATUTORY DISSOLUTION OF THE LLC WERE MET (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS ARSON AND ANIMAL TORTURE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE JUROR EXPRESSED A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO INJURY TO ANIMALS AND THE COURT NEVER SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF SHOULD COULD BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WARRANTED VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (THIRD 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

A DEFENDANT MAY PLEAD GUILTY TO A CRIME WHICH IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY OR FOR... EVIDENCE OF A 1990 ROBBERY AND SEXUAL ASSAULT TO PROVE IDENTITY SHOULD NOT HAVE...