Search and Seizure Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

New York Police Officers’ “Community Caretaking” Role in Traffic Stops

June 17, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

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.

Right to Privacy in Bodily Searches in New York

June 7, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The word “unreasonable” can have different meanings in different contexts, but a recent case coming out of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, provides interesting case law for one of these contexts. The case serves as a reminder that if you ever have doubts about whether you have been unreasonably searched by a police officer, it is never a bad idea to speak with a New York criminal defense attorney to see if you have options to suppress whatever evidence the officer might have found.

Bodily Examinations

The April 2024 case lists out three kinds of bodily examinations (strip searches) that are common after an officer conducts an arrest: the strip search, the “visual body cavity inspection,” and the “manual body cavity search.” A strip search is when an officer has an individual undress and then visually looks over that person’s body. No physical contact is involved. A visual body cavity inspection, on the other hand, is when the officer visually inspects the individual’s body parts below the waistline. In a manual body cavity search, the officer goes so far as to make contact with the person’s genital or anal area to see if that person is hiding anything there.

In order to initiate a manual body cavity search (the most extreme of the three), an officer must have a warrant from the court, except in emergency situations. Courts recognize that this kind of search is a severe intrusion on a person’s right to privacy, therefore making it difficult for an officer to perform this search without a court’s permission.

Understanding a Criminal Defendant’s Rights During Interrogation in New York

May 21, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

If you are questioned in relation to a criminal matter in New York, there are important rights you have under the law. Oftentimes, however, the reality is that state actors do not follow the law when interrogating suspects. If you have faced any kind of interrogation and are now being charged with a crime, one tool available to you is filing a motion to suppress. A defendant can file a motion to suppress to ask the trial court to “suppress,” or get rid of, the record of their statements to the officer questioning them. A successful motion to suppress can then have hugely beneficial effects during the rest of a defendant’s criminal proceedings.

In a recent case before the Appellate Division, Second Department, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements he had given to an officer in connection to several burglaries. While the court ended up denying the defendant’s appeal, the order offers several interesting circumstances that can be grounds for a successful motion to suppress.

The Questioning Officer’s Obligations During Interrogation

When an officer questions a suspect, who is in police custody, regarding a criminal matter, the officer must give that suspect his Miranda warnings – that is, the officer must clearly articulate that the suspect has the right to remain silent and has the right to an attorney. If the suspect waives these rights, he must do so knowingly, and he must understand what he is giving up. If a suspect is held for multiple days or multiple rounds of questioning, the officer has a responsibility to reread the Miranda warnings at reasonable intervals.

New York Court Reaches Pro-Defendant Decision in Narcotics-Detection Dog Case, Ruling that Sniffing Does Indeed Constitute a Search

January 9, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent drug case in New York, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court held that using a narcotics-detection dog to sniff a criminal suspect’s body is defined as a “search.” Before this case, New York case law was unclear about whether this specific action constituted a search, which is relevant because any “search” by a government official automatically triggers individual protections under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. By ruling that the narcotics-detection dog’s sniffing is a search under the law, the court opened up more defendants and suspects to important protections under this Amendment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol saw what they believed to be a drug transaction one evening in a parking lot. The officers followed one of the individuals in his car when he left the parking lot, later stopping him for a traffic violation. The officers then requested that the suspect consent to a search of his vehicle. When the suspect declined, the officers brought out their canine to sniff for drugs both around the vehicle and on the defendant’s person.

The dog involved in the search alerted on three different occasions during the interaction. The suspect began to run away, and the officers chased him, caught him, and eventually found a plastic bag with 76 glassine envelopes of heroin. The suspect was charged with criminal possession of drugs, and he then filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs.

New York Criminal Case Highlights Danger of Providing Inconsistent Statements to Police Officers

December 24, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent criminal case before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, the defendant appealed a conviction that he argued was based on an officer’s unlawful search of his vehicle. In the opinion, the court highlighted the defendant’s inconsistent statements to the police officer that searched his car, which ultimately gave the officer reasonable grounds to search the vehicle. Given these inconsistent statements, decided the court, the defendant’s appeal would ultimately be denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer on patrol pulled the defendant over one evening through a routine traffic stop. The officer approached the defendant and began speaking with him through the open driver’s side window. At first glance, the officer noticed that the defendant was sitting in a twisted position, and it appeared as if he was trying to hide one side of his body from the officer.

The officer asked a couple of questions, at one point inquiring as to where the defendant was heading. When the defendant then gave inconsistent answers about where he was driving, the officer asked if he could search the defendant’s car. While the opinion did not specify what the officer found in the vehicle, it was certainly enough for the State to criminally charge the defendant. He filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which the lower court denied.

New York Defendant Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress in Case Revolving Around Criminal Possession of Skimmer Device

October 4, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

A recent case Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument case before an appellate court in New York highlights the power that police officers have to search personal vehicles and seize suspicious items upon discovering evidence of criminal activity. In this case, in particular, the State of New York charged the defendant with unlawful possession of a skimmer device, which is a tool that helps people commit credit card fraud. The defendant was eventually found guilty by a jury, and he appealed, arguing that the officers did not have legal grounds to search his vehicle. After considering the defendant’s argument, the higher court denied the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when an officer pulled him over for not using his turn signal. The officer approached the car, and the defendant quickly admitted that he did not possess a driver’s license. The officer smelled marijuana while speaking with the defendant, and he told the defendant to exit the vehicle.

The officer then searched the car and found a skimmer device in the vehicle. The State charged the defendant with several crimes, including unlawful possession of a skimmer device and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which was denied by the trial court.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Lower Court’s Decision in Stop and Frisk Case

June 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York drug offense case subject to appellate review in the state of New York, the defendant challenged the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was originally stopped by a police officer after the officer saw him exit his vehicle and pull up his pants. Arguing the officer did not have legal grounds to stop him, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs that the officer eventually found on his person. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant promptly appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was sitting in his car one evening when an officer on patrol stopped behind his car to observe. The officer saw the defendant move from the driver’s seat to the passenger’s seat. He then saw the defendant exit the vehicle and pull up his pants as he walked out.

The officer approached the defendant and, after a brief exchange, patted him down. At that point, the officer found marijuana and heroin on the defendant’s person. He was criminally charged, and he quickly filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs. Once that motion was denied, the defendant appealed.

Appellate Court Sides with Defendant in New York Firearm Possession Case

May 20, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

Last month, an appellate court in New York ruled in favor of the defendant in a New York gun case involving the suppression of physical evidence. Originally, a police officer pulled the defendant over when he was driving, and the officer found a firearm on the defendant’s person. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating evidence found during the traffic stop, and the State of New York appealed. Ultimately, the higher court denied the State’s appeal, siding with the defendant instead.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer was on patrol one evening when he saw the defendant driving nearby. He supposedly perceived the defendant to be going too fast and cross a double yellow line, so he activated his lights and pulled the defendant over. As the officer got out of his car and approached the defendant in his vehicle, he saw an empty firearm holder, marijuana, and a plastic bag with a powdery substance inside the car. The officer told the defendant to step outside and immediately found a firearm on the defendant’s person.

The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a firearm. He filed a motion asking the trial court to suppress the evidence of the firearm, arguing the officer did not actually have a legal reason to pull him over. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed.

New York Appeals Court Sides with Defendant in Firearm Case

April 12, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. In his appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court should have suppressed evidence obtained by the police officers that caught him driving with a firearm. Because the lower court failed to suppress the evidence, argued the defendant, it was the higher court’s responsibility to reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings without the incriminating evidence as part of the record. Ultimately, looking at the evidence in the case, the court of appeals agreed with the defendant and reversed the judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving when two police officers pulled him over for speeding. Once they initiated the traffic stop, the officers questioned the defendant and ultimately found a firearm in his vehicle. The defendant was charged, and he filed a motion to suppress the firearm found in his vehicle. The lower court, however, denied this motion, and the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the officers did not actually have a legal reason to pull him over in the first place, thus making their traffic stop illegal, and any evidence they found as a result of the stop should have been inadmissible. During the hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress, both officers testified that they pulled the defendant over because they suspected he was speeding. However, neither of the officers had used radar to actually measure the defendant’s speed before they pulled him over. Instead, the officers testified that they estimated the defendant was traveling around 40 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone.

Defendant in New York Criminal Case Successfully Gets Incriminating Statements Suppressed

March 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case involving leaving the scene of an accident or incident before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress was improperly denied by the lower court. The defendant was criminally charged and convicted after an incident in which he left the scene of an automobile accident without reporting. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the police officer questioning him neglected to give him the proper Miranda warnings before soliciting information. Agreeing with the defendant, the appellate court ended up suppressing several of the defendant’s incriminating statements.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, state troopers were patrolling one evening when they pulled the defendant and his acquaintance over to the side of the road. Apparently, the troopers had been informed to be on the lookout for a car that looked similar to the defendant’s, whose driver was on the run after colliding with a motorcycle nearby.

The troopers brought the defendant out of his car, told him to place his hands on top of the vehicle, and began to question him about where he had been earlier that evening. At that point, the defendant admitted that he had been driving the car for several hours, including at the time the motorcycle accident happened. Quickly, the defendant backtracked and said that he had actually been on the train earlier that night. When the officer asked which train the defendant had taken, however, the defendant could not think of anything to say.