We have previously written that police officers, in New York and elsewhere, have what is called a “community caretaking” duty. This means that officers are not only obligated to enforce the law, but they also must assist an individual when they notice that he or she needs help. Recently, a New York court had to decide how this community caretaking responsibility applies to traffic stops on the road.
In the case that led to the court’s decision, an officer was driving behind another vehicle when the officer noticed one of the passenger doors quickly open and close. The officer thought someone in the car might have needed help, and he therefore initiated a traffic stop. Upon approaching the driver, the officer smelled marijuana. He asked the driver about possible drug use, and the driver admitted to having used ecstasy.
Motion to Suppress
The defendant was arrested, and he quickly filed a motion to suppress. The question before the court, then, was this: was the officer’s stop warranted? At the suppression hearing, the prosecution argued that the stop was acceptable under the officer’s community caretaking duty. The officer genuinely thought someone in the car needed help, and therefore the subsequent actions were reasonable. The trial court agreed with the prosecution and denied the motion to suppress.
New York’s New Standard
The higher court disagreed, and it ended up establishing a two-part test to determine if an officer can legally pull over a car under this community caretaking role. First, the officer must point to specific and objective facts that would lead a reasonable officer to think that a vehicle passenger needs help. Second, the police action must be as unintrusive as possible. Therefore, once the police officer realizes that no assistance is needed, he cannot justify further action under his community caretaking responsibility.
Here, the officer could not meet the first prong of the test. There was no specific and objective fact that would have led a reasonable officer to think someone in the car needed help. The passenger could have been opening and closing the door quickly for any number of reasons, including because something was stuck in the door, the door wasn’t fully closed, or there was a bug inside the vehicle.
Because the officer’s actions did not meet the court’s newly articulated standard, there was actually no legal basis for the traffic stop. Therefore, the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress. This case will serve as a guide for future patrolling officers, and it will be important to look at how case law develops around this new standard.
Are You Looking for a New York Drug Attorney for Your Case?
At Tilem & Associates, we know that when your freedoms are at stake, you want the best possible attorney by your side. Our firm is proud to implement an aggressive, experience-based strategy that takes each client’s individual circumstances into account, and we fight to get our clients the results they need. For a free and confidential consultation with a New York drug attorney, give us a call today at 877-377-8666. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have a member of our team reach out to you as soon as possible.