People v. Carvey
657 N.Y.S.2d 879, 680 N.E.2d 150, 89 N.Y.2d 707 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When police observe a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle wearing a bulletproof vest and making furtive movements to hide an object, a limited search of the area where the object was placed is justified because these facts create a reasonable conclusion that a weapon in the vehicle presents an actual and specific danger to officer safety.
Facts:
- At 1:20 a.m., Police Officer Mucciariello initiated a traffic stop of a Cadillac because it had no rear license plate.
- The defendant was a passenger in the rear seat of the vehicle.
- As backup Officer Dalton approached the vehicle, he saw the defendant bend down and place something under his seat.
- Officer Dalton also observed that the defendant was wearing a bulletproof vest under his sweatshirt.
- Police ordered all four occupants out of the car.
- After a pat-down of the defendant revealed no weapons, Officer Dalton reached under the rear passenger seat where the defendant had been sitting.
- Officer Dalton recovered a gun from that location.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant filed a motion in the suppression court (trial court) to suppress the gun and his subsequent statements.
- The suppression court denied the defendant's motion.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
- The defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's ruling, with one Justice dissenting.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer's observation of a passenger wearing a bulletproof vest and furtively placing an object under their seat create a sufficient 'actual and specific danger' to justify a limited search of that area of the vehicle's interior after the occupants have been removed?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kaye
Yes, the observation of a passenger wearing a bulletproof vest and furtively hiding an object creates a sufficient danger to justify a limited vehicle search. While New York law generally prohibits searching a vehicle's interior after suspects are removed and any immediate threat is neutralized, an exception exists where facts suggest a weapon in the car poses an 'actual and specific danger' to officer safety. A bulletproof vest, unlike an empty holster, is uniquely indicative of a person's readiness and willingness to use a firearm. This fact, combined with the defendant's furtive movement of hiding something under the seat, was sufficient to create a reasonable conclusion that a weapon was present and posed such a danger, justifying the limited intrusion into the vehicle.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'actual and specific danger' exception to the general rule against warrantless vehicle searches established in People v. Torres. The court establishes that wearing a bulletproof vest is a highly significant factor that, when combined with other suspicious conduct like furtive movements, can elevate reasonable suspicion to the level required for a limited protective search of a vehicle. This case provides law enforcement with clearer grounds to conduct such searches for officer safety, distinguishing the potent combination of a vest and furtive movements from less conclusive facts like an anonymous tip or an empty holster. The ruling reinforces the idea that certain articles are so closely associated with firearm use that their presence fundamentally alters the safety analysis during a police encounter.
