You are here: / STREET STOPS

Tag Archive for: STREET STOPS

,

Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit and Entry Into Defendant’s Apartment—Evidence Properly Suppressed

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s suppression of evidence.  Based upon a confidential informant’s vague description of a man who was about to be part of a drug sale, a police officer followed the defendant. The defendant started running and threw a small object away.  The defendant then entered an apartment with a key.  The police ultimately broke the door down and saw the defendant throw bags of marijuana and heroin out the window.   A subsequent search warrant turned up more drugs. The Second Department wrote:

“Police pursuit of an individual significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . Flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit … . “Flight alone, however, or even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … .

Here, there were no specific circumstances indicating that the defendant might be engaged in criminal activity. The fact that the defendant matched the extremely vague description given by the informant of someone who would conduct a drug transaction somewhere in the vicinity, sometime later that day, was not sufficiently indicative of criminal activity … . * * *

Moreover, the detective compounded the unlawful pursuit by entering the apartment without consent or probable cause and exigent circumstances … . While retreat into one’s home cannot thwart an otherwise proper arrest set in motion in a public place, probable cause for the arrest is required … . When the detective entered the apartment, he did not have probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime. Accordingly, all of the physical evidence was properly suppressed.  People v Nunez, 2013 NY Slip Op 07753, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

Handcuffing Defendant Constituted an Arrest/Defendant’s Actions Did Not Justify Use of Handcuffs

The First Department, contrary to the suppression-hearing court, determined the act of handcuffing the defendant constituted an arrest.  [The matter was sent back to allow the hearing court to determine whether a radio transmission from a fellow officer provided probable cause for the arrest, an issue the hearing court had not ruled upon.]:

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances (see People v Acevedo, 179 AD2d 465, 465-66 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 996 [1992]). In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. The fact that defendant was “a little resistant” when told to put up his hands is not, on its own, sufficient to establish that the officers had any difficulty restraining defendant. Rather, like Acevedo, this case presents a situation in which the officers’ initial use of handcuffs was not warranted by the threat confronting them…, so that the detention exceeds the proper bounds of an intrusion made on less than probable cause. People v Blanding, 2013 NY Slip Op 07692, 1st Dept 11-19-13

 

,

Suppression Motion Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Arrested Before Police Had Probable Cause

The Fourth Department reversed the suppression court and granted defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment. The Fourth Department concluded that the evidence of which the police were aware at the time defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police care did not amount to probable cause.  A baggie containing drugs and a dagger were not found until after the illegal arrest:

…[T]he police were justified in approaching the vehicle outside the bar because they had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception … . We further conclude that the police were justified in pursuing the vehicle inasmuch as “defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that [he] may be engaged in criminal activity, [gave] rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit” … .  Such reasonable suspicion also gave the police the authority to stop the vehicle … .

…[W]e conclude that an arrest occurred here when defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car.  Under such circumstances, “a reasonable man innocent of any crime, would have thought” that he was under arrest … .  “[V]arious factors, when combined with the street exchange of a ‘telltale sign’ of narcotics, may give rise to probable cause that a narcotics offense has occurred.  Those factors relevant to assessing probable cause include the exchange of currency; whether the particular community has a high incidence of drug trafficking; the police officer’s experience and training in drug investigations; and any ‘additional evidence of furtive or evasive behavior on the part of the participants’ ” … .  Here, the police observed neither a “ ‘telltale sign’ ” of narcotics, such as a glassine baggie, nor the exchange of currency … .  Thus, despite the observations of the police outside the bar, their experience in drug investigations, and defendant’s flight, we conclude that the police did not have probable cause to arrest defendant before the dagger and first baggie were observed. People v Lee, 1005, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court to Determine Whether Police Had Sufficient Reason for Asking About Drugs and Weapons After Traffic Stop

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a determination whether the police had a founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry about the presence of drugs of weapons after a traffic stop:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun recovered from the vehicle based upon the inevitable discovery doctrine.  The testimony at the suppression hearing established that, during a lawful traffic stop, one of the police officers asked defendant whether there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle before instructing defendant to exit the vehicle.  After defendant admitted to having marihuana on his person, the police officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle and, following suspicious behavior by another occupant of the vehicle, searched the vehicle and found a gun in plain view.  Notably, the court did not address whether the officer had the requisite founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry concerning the presence of drugs or weapons in the vehicle … . Instead, the court refused to suppress the gun on the ground that the police “could” have taken various actions after the traffic stop that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the gun.  The People, – however, did not raise the inevitable discovery doctrine as a ground for denying suppression of the gun, nor did they meet their burden of “demonstrat[ing] a very high degree of probability that normal police procedures would have uncovered the challenged evidence independently of [a] tainted source”… . People v Sykes, 849, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

Papers Sufficient to Require Suppression Hearing—No Need to Allege Expectation of Privacy Where Police Act Illegally

In finding defendant’s papers were sufficient to require a suppression hearing (re: the suppression of a gun), the Second Department noted that the defendant was not required to demonstrate he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area the gun was found because the motion alleged the gun was seized as a result of illegal police conduct:

A motion to suppress evidence must state the grounds of the motion and contain sworn allegations of fact supporting such grounds (see CPL 710.60[1]…). “It is fundamental that a motion may be decided without a hearing unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” (…see CPL 710.60[3][b],,,). In testing the sufficiency of a defendant’s factual allegations, a court should consider “(1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” … .

Here, the allegations in the defendant’s papers, when considered in the context of the information provided by the People, raised a factual dispute requiring a hearing … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s motion papers contained the requisite sworn allegations of fact … . Moreover, the defendant was not required to demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the gun was found …, since, under both the defendant’s and the People’s versions of events, the dispositive issue was whether the gun was recovered as a direct result of unlawful police action …. In light of the foregoing, the County Court should not have denied suppression without conducting a hearing. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and a new determination thereafter of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence.  People v Jennings, 2013 NY Slip Op 06384, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

,

Level One Request for Information Not Justified by “Drug-Prone” Area or Defendant’s “Flight”—Seized Handgun Should Have Been Suppressed

Over a dissent, the First Department determined the facts did not justify a level one stop of the defendant by the police inside a New York City Housing Authority building and, therefore, the motion to suppress the handgun found in defendant’s pocket should have been granted. The First Department explained that a defendant’s presence in a high-crime or drug-prone alone does not justify a police request for information:

The uniformed police officers entered the building to check on other officers stationed inside. As the officers made their way towards the lobby, they saw defendant descending the stairs. When defendant saw the officers, he froze, jerked back, began to retreat, then stopped and stood on the stairs. Based on defendant’s reaction, and given the drug-prone nature of the building, the officers “suspected [defendant of] trespassing,” and asked him to come down the stairs to “make sure if he lived in the building.”

Defendant initially told the officers that he lived there. However, when asked for identification, he began to stutter, and changed his story to say that he was visiting his girlfriend. Although defendant stated that he had his identification in his pocket, he began moving his hands “all over the place, especially around his chest area,” which the officers interpreted to be threatening and indicative of possession of a weapon. To “take control of the situation” before it could “get out of hand,” an officer grabbed defendant’s left arm and brought it behind defendant’s back, which caused defendant’s open jacket to open up further and reveal a silver pistol in the netted interior coat pocket. One officer removed the pistol from the pocket, and another handcuffed defendant. * * *

Presence in a high-crime or drug-prone location, without more, does not furnish an objective credible reason for the police to approach an individual and request information … . As we have observed, “[T]he reputation of a location, however notorious, does not provide a predicate for subversion of the Fourth Amendment” … .

Nor does an individual’s desire to avoid contact with police—even in a high-crime neighborhood–constitute an objective credible reason for making a level one inquiry… .  People v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05723, 1st Dept 8-27-13

 

,

Defendant Was Lawfully Seized by Police Under these Facts

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, finding that the defendant was not unlawfully seized under the following facts:

At the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that he stopped defendant because defendant was riding the motorbike in the road without a helmet.  When the officer asked defendant whether he had any identification, defendant answered, “no,” and took a step back, whereupon the officer reached toward defendant in an attempt to frisk him.  Before the officer could detain him, however, defendant ran away and, during his flight, punched another officer who had joined in the pursuit. Defendant was soon apprehended and found to be in possession of a loaded firearm, 20 bags of marihuana, and more than $2,000 in cash. People v Bradley, 685, 4th Dept 7-5-13

STREET STOPS, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

,

Detention and Frisk of Juvenile Supported by Reasonable Suspicion

The First Department determined the following scenario provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the detention and frisk of the juvenile:

A police officer testified that she was investigating an unruly crowd when she observed appellant walking towards her with his arm under his shirt, clutching an object held at his waist. Based on the rigidity of his body and how tightly he held the object, she believed it to be a weapon. As he passed by, she heard him say that he was “going to get him.” When she approached with her shield visible around her neck, appellant moved towards her, whereupon she grabbed his hand and felt the handle of a knife. During a brief struggle, the knife fell to the ground. Appellant was placed under arrest and the knife, which had a six-inch blade, was recovered.  Matter of Daquan B, 2013 NY Slip Op 04974 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

, ,

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed

The Third Department reversed County Court’s suppression of defendant’s statements and County Court’s finding that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the search of his car (both based on the absence of Miranda warnings).   The Third Department determined a reasonable person innocent of a crime would still have felt he was free to leave (i.e., that he was not in custody) after his failure of field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test.  The Third Department further noted that the failure to provide Miranda warnings would not necessarily render a consent to search involuntary:

The court ….overlooked the settled proposition that “[a] temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda” … .The facts here reveal a reasonable initial interrogation attendant to a roadside detention that was merely investigatory…. The Troopers’ inquiries, the mixed results of the field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test would not have caused a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to believe that he or she was in custody….   In our view, the Troopers’ observations of defendant’s condition justified the further  detention  for the  limited  purpose  of  investigating whether  he  was  operating his motor  vehicle in an  impaired condition… .  People v Brown, 105134, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

“Mere Nervousness” Does Not Justify Police Inquiry/ More than “Mere Nervousness” in this Case

In finding that the police inquiry was proper because it was prompted by more than merely the defendant’s nervousness (which would not have been sufficient for a suspicion of criminality), the First Department explained:

The Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Garcia (20 NY3d 317 [2012]) does not dictate a different result. In Garcia defendant’s vehicle was pulled over because of a defective brake light. Aside from the faulty light, there was no indication of criminality by the occupants of the car; they merely appeared nervous and acted “furtive[ly]” by “stiffen[ing] up and “looking behind” upon being pulled over (id. at 320). The Court of Appeals agreed with this Court that a defendant’s nervousness, without more, is not enough to give rise to a founded suspicion of criminality that allows for a common-law inquiry. Here, however, apart from seeming nervous, defendant was observed in a drug-prone neighborhood pulling what appeared to be an aluminum foil packet out of his pocket. The arresting officer suspected that the aluminum foil contained cocaine because cocaine is often packaged in that manner. And, unlike Garcia, where the alleged “furtive” behavior was consistent with nervousness over being pulled over, here, defendant’s attempt to block the … officers’ view of the shirt pocket in which he had placed the aluminum packet was consistent with someone in possession of a controlled substance attempting to avoid apprehension. These circumstances were sufficient to give the police the requisite founded suspicion to approach and question defendant.  People v Loretta, 2013 NY Slip Op 04562, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

STREET STOPS

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