New York Court of Appeals overturns conviction after illegal traffic stop

The state’s highest court has overturned a disorderly conduct conviction due to an illegal traffic stop.

In May 2017, officers stopped a vehicle driven by defendant Jason Brown because they saw a door of a moving car open and close quickly.

When the officers approached the car, they smelled marijuana. Brown admitted to using ecstasy and was charged with seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance.

Brown decided to suppress his statement and the physical evidence found by police.

During the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that while he and his partner were traveling in an unmarked car, he saw the passenger side door of Brown’s car in front of them open and close as the car was moving.

The officer said he thought it was possible that “someone needed some kind of help,” so he stopped the car.

When officers approached the car, they noticed the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Brown was asked if he had “anything on him.”

He admitted to consuming ecstasy and was arrested. Later, marijuana and more ecstasy were found in the car.

Police estimated that when the door was opened and closed, Brown’s car was going 20 or 25 miles per hour, which was not above the speed limit.

“While we recognize a function of ‘community guarding’ whereby, in certain circumstances, the police may stop a moving vehicle, we nevertheless conclude that in the present circumstances the stopping of the defendant’s vehicle was unlawful “, wrote Judge Shirley Troutman for the New York Times. Court of Appeals of the State of York.

The police officer did not see anything happening inside the car. He heard no screams or cries for help, and he did not see the vehicle commit any traffic violations that would constitute probable cause for his stop, according to the decision.

The prosecution argued that the stop was justified by observing the door opening and closing while the car was in motion, which led to a reasonable fear that someone in the vehicle had need help, Troutman wrote.

The judge who denied the motion to suppress concluded that at the time of the stop, Brown had not committed any traffic violations and that police did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

But the judge ruled it was reasonable for police to be concerned about the passenger’s safety after seeing the vehicle’s door open and close while it was in motion, and the safety concern warranted the ‘interpellation.

Brown pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, also ruling that “the stopping of the vehicle was justified by considerations of public safety.”

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction.

The police testimony “failed to establish specific, objective and explicit facts that would lead a reasonable police officer to conclude that an occupant of the vehicle was in need of assistance.”

The only reason to believe that an occupant of the vehicle might need assistance was observing the doors opening and closing while the car was in motion.

“The observation of the car door opening and closing once while the vehicle was in motion, alone, would not allow a reasonable officer to conclude that an occupant of the vehicle was in need of assistance,” Troutman wrote.

“There are many harmless reasons why a car door may open and close while a vehicle is in motion, including a car sensor alerting an occupant that the door is not fully closed , that a seat belt or article of clothing is stuck in the door, or the occupant is attempting to release an insect inside the vehicle,” she wrote.

“Whatever concern the officer had about opening the door did not warrant stopping the vehicle,” she wrote.

(email protected) / (585) 232-2035