You are here: / / Frisk of Defendant After a Vehicle Stop Okay, Officer Had Reasonable Suspicion...

Frisk of Defendant After a Vehicle Stop Okay, Officer Had Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity and an Articulable Basis to Fear for His Safety.

The Fourth Department determined a police officer had the right to frisk the passengers in a lawfully stopped car to the extent necessary to protect his safety because he was acting on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for his own safety.   Before the defendant got into the car which was stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer had observed the defendant “engage in a number of ‘handshakes’ “which the officer determined were either hand to hand drug sales or “gang signals.”  When the car was stopped the officer saw the defendant either take something out of or put something into his pocket. People vs Daniels, 9, KA 09-287 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

DeBour, vehicle stop, street stops, search

You might also like
Motion to Vacate Conviction Should Not Have Been Granted—Hearsay Statement Exonerating Defendant Did Not Meet the Criteria for a Statement Against Penal Interest and Should Not Have Been Admitted—The Underlying Evidence Was Not Newly Discovered Because Defendant Was Aware of It at the Time of Trial–Defendant Did Not Provide the Evidence at Trial Because He Feared Retaliation by Gang Members
Exception to Written Notice of Defect Prerequisite Did Not Apply; Question of Fact Whether Municipality Created Dangerous Condition (Gap in Bridge-Roadway)
Court’s Equitable Power to Set Aside a Foreclosure Sale as “An Instrument of Injustice” Explained and Applied
REVERSIBLE ERROR TO READ BACK TO THE JURY THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION BUT NOT THE DEFENSE SUMMATION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MACHINE.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COUNTY WAS AFFIRMATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Strict Liability for Clean Up of Petroleum Spilled Between 1890 and 1935
Proof of Normal Notification Procedure Sufficient to Demonstrate Defendant Was Notified of Lead-Paint-Injury Exclusion in Policy

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

Suppression Motion Should Not Have Been Granted, Officers Had “Objective Credible... Sentence Could Be Challenged In Spite of Waiver of Appeal.