You are here: / / THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY...
,

THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT POINTED QUESTIONS IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the police officer did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time defendant was asked about the contents of a bag he was carrying. The defendant answered “weed,” was frisked, and a firearm was seized. The evidence should have been suppressed:

The evidence at the suppression hearing establishes that the arresting officer was on routine patrol in what he described as a high-crime area known to be an “open air drug market,” where there had also been numerous burglaries and robberies. That officer had been a member of the police force for only a few months, and he was under the supervision of a training officer. The arresting officer testified that he observed defendant walking on a sidewalk shortly after midnight on a chilly night, with temperatures near 40 degrees, and that defendant was wearing a mask that covered the lower part of his face. The officer had not received any reports of recent crimes in the area, was not responding to any call, and did not observe defendant engage in any illegal activity. The officer pulled his patrol vehicle in front of defendant’s path of travel, exited the patrol vehicle along with the training officer, approached defendant, and asked defendant why he was wearing a mask. Defendant replied that he was walking his dog, and the unchallenged evidence at the hearing establishes that he was indeed walking a dog. * * *

Based on the evidence at the suppression hearing, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that the training officer had the requisite founded suspicion … . Thus, we conclude that the training officer’s inquiry and the subsequent frisk of defendant by the arresting officer was not a proper escalation of the level one encounter. …

We further conclude that the frisk of defendant and seizure of the gun was not justified “as having been in the interests of the officer[‘s] safety, since there was no testimony that the [arresting] officer[ ] believed defendant to be carrying a weapon . . . , and the People presented no other evidence establishing that the [arresting] officer had reason to fear for his safety” … . People v Wallace, 2020 NY Slip Op 01796, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A FLOOR OPENING IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, DEFENDANT HAD PLACED CARDBOARD OVER THE OPENING, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROOF DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A FIREARM FOUND IN THE CEILING OF A HOUSE WHERE DEFENDANT WAS A GUEST WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AT THE TIME THE FIREARM WAS SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE COUNTY LAW; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE; IN THIS MURDER CASE IN WHICH THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) DEFENSE WAS RAISED, DEFENDANT’S MILITARY SERVICE RECORDS, SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY RECORDS AND PTSD DIAGNOSIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Housing for Actors and Theater Staff Deemed Tax-Exempt
STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF.

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

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; COUNTY... FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER WHERE...