You are here: / / OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE...
,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, in a comprehensive street stop (DeBour) analysis too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when he asked defendant, a passenger in a car, “what do you have.” Defendant replied that he had a “piece” and he was convicted of possession of a weapon:

There was nothing improper about the police officers’ direction that the defendant and the two other occupants exit the vehicle. “In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . However, the scope of that authority is limited to guarding against “the unique danger of a partially concealed automobile occupant by allowing the officer to order occupants out of a car and readily observe their movements” … . …

In the context of a traffic stop, the Court of Appeals has made clear that “a police officer who asks a private citizen if he or she is in possession of a weapon must have founded suspicion that criminality is afoot” …, thereby squarely placing this type of inquiry within De Bour level two. Moreover, mere nervousness does not provide the requisite indication of criminality … .

Here, the circumstances described by Officer Weibert at the suppression hearing did not establish “a founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot” … . Significantly, there was no testimony of a bulge at the defendant’s waistband … , or any indication that the defendant was reaching for, grabbing at, or adjusting his waistband … . To the contrary, Officer Weibert denied that the defendant made any furtive gesture or reached for anything; he testified only that the defendant was acting nervous, shaking his knees and legs up and down, and leaning forward in his seat with his hands in his lap and his arms tightly at his side. People v White, 2018 NY Slip Op 01492, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/DE BOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
IN DENYING THE STATE POLICE’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER (ERPO) AGAINST THE 18-YEAR-OLD RESPONDENT, THE JUDGE FOCUSED ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RESPONDENT HAD ACCESS TO FIREARMS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE RESPONDENT POSED A RISK OF SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Re: Related Criminal Convictions Properly Applied
Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6) Succinctly Explained—Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault Must Be Demonstrated—Absence of Actual or Constructive Notice on the Owner/Contractor’s Part Is Not a Defense
FAMILY COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE ITS REASONS FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON PARENTAL INCOME IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP; THE ORIGINAL SUPPORT LEVEL BASED ON THE STATUTORY CAP REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (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

PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER...