You are here: / / THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE VEHICLE...
,

THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER BECAUSE OF “EXCESSIVELY TINTED WINDOWS” WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE STOP; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the police officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger was stopped based on “excessively tinted window” was not sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for the vehicle stop. Therefore the drugs seized from the defendant should have been suppressed:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (12-a) (b) generally provides that “[n]o person shall operate any motor vehicle upon any public highway, road[,] or street” with windows which have a light transmittance of less than 70%. * * *

When a defendant challenges “the sufficiency of the factual predicate for the stop,” it is the People’s burden “to come forward with evidence sufficient to establish that the stop was lawful” … . “Summary statements that the police had arrived at a conclusion that sufficient cause existed will not do” … . * * *

… Detective Fortunato’s testimony that the tint was “excessive” is … a legal conclusion that the tint violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Yet, the People failed to elicit any factual basis for this conclusion. The detective did not testify, for example, that the windows were so dark that he could not see into the vehicle … or that he had training and experience in identifying illegally tinted windows or conducting this type of stop … . Nor did the detective testify that he measured the tint after stopping the vehicle and the results confirmed that the tint level violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which could have provided objective, corroborative evidence of the reasonableness of his conclusion … . People v Nektalov, 2024 NY Slip Op 02725, CtApp 5-16-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate probable cause for a vehicle stop based upon “excessively tinted windows” there must be some demonstration the tint violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law (less that 70% light transmittance). Simply testifying the windows were “excessively tinted” is not enough.

 

You might also like
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DREW HIS GUN BEFORE THE UNARMED VICTIM “SWIPED” AT IT, THE DEFENDANT WAS THE INITIAL “DEADLY FORCE” AGGRESSOR AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).
OVERRULING A 2006 OPINION, A PLAINTIFF IN A DOG-BITE ACTION CAN NOW SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE (CT APP).
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL GUIDELINES CONSIDER A SEX OFFENDER’S YOUTH (UNDER 20) AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR WARRANTING AN ASSESSMENT OF TEN POINTS; HERE DEFENDANTS ARGUED THEIR YOUTH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A MITIGATING FACTOR; THAT ISSUE CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, NOT THE COURTS (CT APP).
WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MURDER AFTER IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS; HIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED CONTESTED FACTS REQUIRED A TRIAL (CT APP).
THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S CLAIM THAT OTHER JURORS HAD EXHIBITED RACIAL BIAS DURING DELIBERATIONS AND PROPERLY DENIED THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A MISTRIAL; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (CT APP).
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).

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

AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE”... THE DA HANDLING THE APPEAL WAS A LAW CLERK TO THE JUDGE WHO PRESIDED OVER THE...