You are here: / STREET STOPS

Tag Archive for: STREET STOPS

, ,

Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, , ,

No “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Vehicle Stop—Revocation of License for Refusal of Chemical Test Reversed

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress jewelry taken from his pocket after pat-down search on the street should have been granted.  At the suppression hearing, the People did not argue that the officer who stopped the defendant had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time of the pat-down search.  Therefore, the Second Department noted, that argument could not be raised by the People on appeal. At the suppression hearing, the People argued that the jewelry was admissible under the “inevitable discovery” exception to the warrant requirement. However, the “inevitable discovery” exception does not apply to “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search:”

At the suppression hearing, the People expressly disclaimed reliance on the theory that the search of the defendant and the seizure of the jewelry from his pants pocket was justified because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the moment he was stopped, and the hearing court did not address that theory. Thus, the People may not assert this theory on appeal … . Instead, the People argued that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered, and the Supreme Court relied on that theory in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry. The court properly determined that the record does not support a finding that the police officer legitimately believed that the jewelry might be some kind of weapon … . However, as the People now correctly concede, the court erred in its determination that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered through normal police procedures, as the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to primary evidence, that is, “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search,” such as the jewelry at issue here … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry should have been granted. People v Henagin, 2015 NY Slip Op 04864, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Evidence Seized In Violation of Probationer’s Constitutional Rights Should Not Have Been Used as the Basis for a Probation Revocation

The Fourth Department determined evidence which was suppressed because it was unconstitutionally seized could not be used to support a revocation of probation, noting that a probationer loses some privacy and Fourth Amendment rights, but not all of both:

The Court of Appeals has “recognized . . . that a probationer loses some privacy expectations and some part of the protections of the Fourth Amendment, but not all of both” …, and “that a person on parole, although legally in custody and subject to supervision, is nevertheless constitutionally entitled to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A person on probation, subject to similar restraints (see CPL 410.50, subds. 1, 2)[,] should be similarly protected” … . Furthermore, with respect to evidence that was illegally seized from a person under a revocable disposition, “the Court of Appeals has applied the New York constitution to suppress such evidence at a parole revocation hearing . . . , and it would seem to follow a fortiori that such evidence would not be admissible at a probation violation hearing, which is even closer to a criminal action than a parole violation hearing” … . Here, the court concluded that the stop and search of defendant and his home were violative of defendant’s rights under the Constitutions of New York and the United States. Consequently, the court erred in relying upon the evidence seized as a result of those improper searches to conclude that defendant violated a condition of his probation… . People v Robinson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03967, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry Ran Did Not Provide the Police with Reasonable Suspicion that Defendant, Who Obeyed the Police Commands, Was Involved in a Crime

The First Department determined that the police did not have sufficient cause to detain four men, including the defendant, on the street. The fact that one of the four men subsequently ran did not provide any additional justification for detaining defendant. The police had enough information about a near-by robbery only to justify a “level one” street inquiry of the four men, not detention.  While detained without sufficient cause, defendant was asked by the police to lift up his shirt, revealing a gun.  Absent “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in a crime, the defendant should not have been detained to await the show-up. Absent an indication defendant posed a danger to the police officers, the defendant should not have been asked to lift his shirt:

…[T]he group of men was in a location to which a group of robbers had been reported to have fled only minutes earlier, giving the officers an articulable reason for inquiring into why the men were in the area … . The question, then, is whether the encounter ever escalated to a point that the police would have been justified in holding the men at the scene while the complainant was transported to it.

…[R]easonable suspicion is a necessary predicate to a detention for a showup identification … . Further, a person’s flight is sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to escalate a level one or level two encounter to a level three detention, so long as other circumstances are attendant, such as a high-crime location and activity suggesting, although not alone creating, reasonable suspicion that the person fleeing the scene may be engaged in criminal conduct … . In all of the cases which discuss flight as the determining factor in creating reasonable suspicion, however, the defendant is the person who fled. Here, of course, defendant did not flee; he obeyed the officers’ direction to stop and to submit to their questioning. People v Thompson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03605 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

,

The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed

The First Department determined the police officer’s observations of the defendant’s actions (head turning both ways) in a “high narcotics area” justified his approach of the defendant, who was sitting in a car (founded suspicion/common-law right of inquiry).  Asking the defendant what was in his pocket after the defendant pulled his hand from his jacket was also justified. However, the officer’s “tapping” of an object in defendant’s pocket was not justified.  The intrusion (tapping the pocket) and the subsequent frisk of the defendant were not supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime or by the need to ensure the officer’s safety. The arrest was invalid and the motion to suppress all seized items, as well as the statements made by the defendant, should have been granted:

Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police at approximately 9 p.m. in a “high narcotics area.” As an officer approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he noticed defendant’s “head turning both ways and a lot of . . . movement coming from the area of the front passenger seat.” As he reached the passenger side window, he saw defendant, who appeared nervous, “pulling his hand from his jacket, from the fold of his jacket.” When the officer asked defendant what he “put in [his] jacket,” defendant “mumbled something unintelligible or really didn’t say much.” The officer then reached into the car, “tapped” the pocket of defendant’s jacket with the flashlight he was holding, and felt “something hard.”

The officer’s observations, up until the time he arrived at the passenger window, gave rise to founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, and so justified his question regarding what defendant had put in his pocket, which constituted a common-law inquiry … . However, we find that the physical intrusion of tapping defendant’s pocket was unauthorized. The circumstances did not give rise to the reasonable suspicion required to authorize a frisk. Nor was the officer’s conduct justifiable as a “minimal self-protective measure”…, which is permissible in furtherance of the common-law right of inquiry, where sufficient concerns for personal safety are present … . The circumstances, viewed as a whole, did not suggest any need for the officer to take such a precaution. At the time of the officer’s intrusion, defendant was not reaching for an area where a weapon might be located, there was no suggestion that a weapon was present or that violence was imminent, and there was no other basis for a self-protective intrusion.

Because the ensuing frisk outside the car, and the resulting arrest, depended on the initial improper intrusion, they were invalid as well. In any event, we also find that the search of the plastic bag following defendant’s arrest was not supported by exigent circumstances … . People v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 03458, 1st Dept 4-28-15

 

,

Concise Description of the Application of the DeBour Street-Encounter Criteria Leading to the Seizure of a Weapon

The Second Department, in finding the seizure of a gun from the defendant proper, provided a concise application of the DeBour street encounter factors:

The arresting officer testified that he saw, from a distance of “[l]ess than a foot” away, “what looked to be” “two to three inches” of “the butt of a firearm” that was “pulling down” the defendant’s rear pants pocket. These observations gave the officer an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant … . Upon seeing the officer, the defendant immediately turned sideways to obscure his rear pants pockets from the officer’s view, giving the officer a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” justifying greater intrusion to conduct an inquiry … . At that point, when the defendant lowered his hands in the direction of his waist area, the officer had reason to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury and was authorized to conduct a protective frisk (see CPL 140.50[3]…). Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest arose after the officer grabbed the defendant’s hands for his own safety and, upon “wrestling” with the defendant, saw that the item in the defendant’s back pocket was, in fact, a firearm … . Thus, the record establishes that the officer’s conduct was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope and intensity to the circumstances of the encounter as it developed … . Moreover, given the legality of the officer’s actions, the defendant’s claim that his post-arrest statement to police should be suppressed as the product of an illegal search or seizure is without merit… . People v Owens, 2015 NY Slip Op 02790, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Frisk Not Justified Under DeBour Analysis

The Fourth Department determined the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion defendant was committing a crime and had no reasonable basis to suspect he was in danger at the time he frisked the defendant:

It is well established that, in evaluating the legality of police conduct, we “must determine whether the action taken was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter” (…People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 215). In De Bour, the Court of Appeals “set forth a graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police: level one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality; level two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater intrusion and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot; level three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual, and requires a reasonable suspicion that the particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor; [and] level four, arrest, requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime” (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 498-499).

Here, contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the information provided in the 911 dispatch coupled with the officers’ observations provided the police with “an objective, credible reason for initially approaching defendant and requesting information from him” … . The officers pulled up next to defendant and, without exiting the vehicle, asked to see defendant’s identification and asked defendant where he was going and where he was coming from, which was a permissible level one intrusion … .

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that his failure to answer the officers’ questions about where he was going and where he was coming from, when added to the information acquired from the police dispatch and defendant’s heightened interest in the patrol car, created a “founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot,” justifying a level two intrusion … . The common-law right of inquiry “authorized the police to ask questions of defendant—and to follow defendant while attempting to engage him—but not to seize him in order to do so” … . The police therefore acted lawfully in following defendant for the purpose of obtaining an answer to their valid questions about his whereabouts. The encounter, however, quickly escalated to a level three intrusion when one of the officers grabbed defendant’s hand and patted the outside of his pants pocket. “[A] stop and frisk is a more obtrusive procedure than a mere request for information or a stop invoking the common-law right of inquiry, and as such normally must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the particular person has committed or is about to commit a crime” … . ” [W]here no more than a common-law right to inquire exists, a frisk must be based upon a reasonable suspicion that the officers are in physical danger and that defendant poses a threat to their safety’ “* * * …[U]nlike in other cases where we have sanctioned a frisk for weapons, there was no evidence in this case that defendant refused to comply with the officers’ directives or that he made any furtive, suspicious, or threatening movements … . Indeed, under the circumstances of this case, the presence of defendant’s hand in his left pants pocket was particularly innocuous and ” readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation’ ” … . Defendant retrieved his identification from his left pants pocket and returned it to that pocket after complying with the officers’ request to produce identification … .

We therefore conclude that, “[b]ecause the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime and had no reasonable basis to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury, . . . the ensuing pat frisk of defendant was unlawful” … . People v Burnett, 2015 NY Slip Op 02613, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, over a strong dissent, determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and detention of the defendant, a mixed question of law and fact:

Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion presents a mixed question of law and fact … . Because the Appellate Division’s reversals were thus not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), these appeals are not authorized to be taken.

While acknowledging that “determinations as to reasonable suspicion typically present a mixed question of law and fact,” the dissent cites People v McRay (51 NY2d 594 [1980]) for the proposition that these cases instead involve a straight-up question of law — namely, “the minimum showing necessary to establish reasonable suspicion” … . In McRay, though, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court on the ground that the People’s proof was insufficient as a matter of law to support probable cause to arrest (id. at 605). When we disagreed and reversed, we therefore remitted to the Appellate Division for factual review, emphasizing that an inference of probable cause was permitted, but not required, on the facts established (id. at 605, 606). Here, by contrast, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court because, when exercising its independent fact-finding powers, it drew a different inference from the established facts, thus deciding a mixed question of law and fact. The dissenting Judge strongly disagrees with the Appellate Division. But the views of individual Judges of this Court on the merits of defendants’ suppression motions are beside the point because the Criminal Procedure Law simply does not vest us with jurisdiction to entertain these appeals… . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 02552, CtApp 3-26-15

 

,

Nervous and Uncooperative Actions by Defendant Justified Search of Area Inside Defendant’s Car After Defendant Was Out of the Car and Had Been Frisked

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the nervous and uncooperative actions of the defendant justified the warrantless search of a bag inside the car defendant was driving, after defendant was outside the car and had been frisked:

The testimony supports the trial court’s finding that the facts available to the officers, including defendant’s furtive behavior, suspicious actions in looking into the back seat on multiple occasions and refusal to follow the officers’ legitimate directions, went beyond mere nervousness. Rather, defendant’s actions both inside and outside of the vehicle created a “perceptible risk” and supported a reasonable conclusion that a weapon that posed an actual and specific danger to their safety was secreted in the area behind the front passenger seat, which justified the limited search of that area, even after defendant had been removed from the car and frisked … . People v Hardee, 2015 NY Slip Op 02573, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy