22 Cited authorities

Michigan v. Long
463 U.S. 1032 (1983) Cited 3,664 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile . . . is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons"
People v. Bigelow
66 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 854 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting the "good-faith exception" to the warrant requirement
People v. Garcia
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8670 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 147 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Garcia, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's determination that the police lacked the requisite founded suspicion when, upon stopping a vehicle for a mere defective brake light, an officer asked if any of the occupants had a weapon (see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d at 324).
People v. Sierra
83 N.Y.2d 928 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 185 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Sierra, we found no reasonable suspicion to pursue a fleeing defendant where “the officers knew only that, after exiting from the back seat of a livery cab that had been stopped for defective brake lights, defendant grabbed at his waistband” (id. [emphasis added]).
People v. Torres
74 N.Y.2d 224 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 212 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting Supreme Court's expansive view of "stop and frisk" procedures as applied to automobiles
People v. Batista
88 N.Y.2d 650 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 143 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining a “frisk” as a “pat down of the outer clothing of a suspect”
People v. McIntosh
96 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 121 times
In McIntosh, the Appellate Division, 274 A.D. 2d at 741-742, held that suspicion that a location is a known drug source of narcotics is sufficient articulable reason for the interdiction.
People v. Jimenez
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1262 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 77 times 1 Legal Analyses
In People v. Jimenez, 22 N.Y.3d at 723–724, 985 N.Y.S.2d 456, 8 N.E.3d 831), other than a police officer's perception that a large purse that was removed from the defendant's shoulder appeared to be heavy, there were no circumstances supporting a reasonable belief that the purse contained weapon or destructible evidence, and nothing connected the defendant or the codefendant to the burglary report at the building in the lobby of which the defendant was arrested for trespass.
People v. Mundo
99 N.Y.2d 55 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 77 times
In Mundo, the failure of the driver to stop the vehicle and the repeated attempts to evade the police, which resulted in a near collision with a pedestrian, demonstrated a willingness to endanger the safety of others (see 99 N.Y.2d at 57, 750 N.Y.S.2d 837, 780 N.E.2d 522).
People v. William
98 N.Y.2d 93 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 76 times
In People v. William II, 98 N.Y.2d 93, 745 N.Y.S.2d 792, 772 N.E.2d 1150 (2002), the police received an anonymous call indicating a man named “Will” had just been involved in a drive-by shooting.

The People, Respondent, v Stanley Hardee, Appellant.

22 Cited authorities

Rejecting the "good-faith exception" to the warrant requirement

In Garcia, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's determination that the police lacked the requisite founded suspicion when, upon stopping a vehicle for a mere defective brake light, an officer asked if any of the occupants had a weapon (see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d at 324).

In Sierra, we found no reasonable suspicion to pursue a fleeing defendant where “the officers knew only that, after exiting from the back seat of a livery cab that had been stopped for defective brake lights, defendant grabbed at his waistband” (id. [emphasis added]).

Rejecting Supreme Court's expansive view of "stop and frisk" procedures as applied to automobiles

Defining a “frisk” as a “pat down of the outer clothing of a suspect”

In McIntosh, the Appellate Division, 274 A.D. 2d at 741-742, held that suspicion that a location is a known drug source of narcotics is sufficient articulable reason for the interdiction.

In Mundo, the failure of the driver to stop the vehicle and the repeated attempts to evade the police, which resulted in a near collision with a pedestrian, demonstrated a willingness to endanger the safety of others (see 99 N.Y.2d at 57, 750 N.Y.S.2d 837, 780 N.E.2d 522).

In People v. William II, 98 N.Y.2d 93, 745 N.Y.S.2d 792, 772 N.E.2d 1150 (2002), the police received an anonymous call indicating a man named “Will” had just been involved in a drive-by shooting.