You are here: / / THE POLICE WERE JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING A BICYCLIST WHO WAS WEAVING AND HOLDING...
,

THE POLICE WERE JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING A BICYCLIST WHO WAS WEAVING AND HOLDING A BULKY OBJECT IN HIS WAISTBAND; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a gun and statements based upon a street stop. The court noted that defendant was riding a bicycle and the street stop rules which apply to pedestrians, not vehicles, apply:

The Court of Appeals has held that an officer’s instruction to a pedestrian to “stop” requires only a common-law right of inquiry and does not constitute a seizure … . …

… Supreme Court properly determined that the officer’s statements to the defendant to “hold up” constituted a level two encounter under De Bour, and that the officers were justified in making a common-law inquiry based upon their observations of the manner in which the defendant was riding his bicycle, as well as their observation of a “bulky” object that the defendant was holding at his waistband … .

… [T]he defendant stopped in response to the commands and … the officers did not block his path or otherwise signal that he was not free to leave … . The unobtrusive manner in which the police followed the defendant did not elevate the pursuit itself to a seizure … .

The officers were justified in frisking the defendant based on Officer Schnell’s observation of the bulky object in the defendant’s waistband together with the defendant’s statements that he had a gun … . People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03202, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

You might also like
Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff
Detective’s Testimony About a Non-Testifying Witness’ Description of the Perpetrator Properly Admitted to Explain Detective’s Subsequent Actions and Complete the Narrative
City Can Not Be Held Liable for Injuries Caused by Attacking Dogs About Which Complaints Had Been Made—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiff’s Decedent and City
Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Not Sufficiently Corroborated for Admission Into Evidence
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.
NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense Required Vacation of Guilty Plea
THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND 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

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE... PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING...