People v. Mundo
99 N.Y.2d 55, 780 N.E.2d 522, 750 N.Y.S.2d 837 (2002)
Rule of Law:
Under the New York Constitution, a limited police search of a vehicle for weapons is permissible, even after the occupants have been removed, if the occupants' combined actions, such as blatant disregard for police commands and furtive movements, create a reasonable conclusion that a weapon within the vehicle presents an actual and specific danger to officer safety.
Facts:
- On July 10, 1997, two police officers in Manhattan witnessed a vehicle with Florida plates make an illegal right turn on a red light.
- The officers initiated a traffic stop, but after the vehicle initially stopped, it pulled away as the officers approached on foot.
- The police pursued the vehicle, which stopped and fled a second time.
- During the pursuit, the vehicle nearly struck a pedestrian.
- Officers observed the defendant, a passenger in the backseat, turn towards them and then make a movement as if he were hiding something in the center of the backseat.
- The officers successfully stopped the vehicle for a third and final time and removed all occupants.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the cocaine in the trial court (Supreme Court), alleging an unconstitutional search.
- The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance.
- Defendant appealed his conviction to the intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed the conviction.
- The defendant was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
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 a limited police search of the area within a vehicle where an occupant was seen making furtive movements violate the New York Constitution, when the vehicle had repeatedly attempted to flee a lawful traffic stop, even after the occupants were removed from the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley, J.
No. The limited police search of the vehicle does not violate the New York Constitution because the officers reasonably concluded that a weapon located within the vehicle presented an actual and specific danger to their safety. This case presents circumstances that meet the exception to the general rule established in People v. Torres, which prohibits such searches absent probable cause once suspects are removed. The combination of the vehicle's blatant disregard for officer commands, its repeated attempts to flee, the danger it posed to a pedestrian, and the defendant's furtive movement to hide something in the backseat created a perceptible risk sufficient to justify a limited intrusion. This set of facts established an 'actual and specific danger' under the standard articulated in Torres and applied in People v. Carvey, justifying the limited search of the area where the furtive movements were observed to ensure officer safety.
Dissenting - Ciparick, J.
Yes. The search violates the New York Constitution because the record is insufficient to support a finding of an 'actual and specific danger' to officer safety. The rule in New York, as established in People v. Torres, provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution and requires more than a theoretical threat; it demands an articulable basis to fear for safety and a substantial likelihood of a weapon being present. Unlike in People v. Carvey, where a bulletproof vest provided a direct link to the imminent use of a firearm, the 'unusual' behavior and 'furtive movements' here do not rise to the same level. Once the suspects were removed from the car and frisked without incident, any immediate threat was neutralized. The majority's decision improperly broadens the narrow Carvey exception to the point that it consumes the protective rule of Torres, weakening the protections of the State Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision expands the 'actual and specific danger' exception to New York's warrant requirement for vehicle searches, allowing courts to consider the totality of a suspect's evasive and dangerous behavior, in combination with furtive movements, to justify a limited protective search. It shifts the analysis from requiring evidence directly indicative of a weapon (like the bulletproof vest in Carvey) to permitting an inference of danger from a pattern of highly uncooperative and reckless conduct. This precedent lowers the threshold for such searches, providing law enforcement with greater latitude in situations where suspects actively resist a stop, and will likely lead to more vehicle searches being upheld on officer safety grounds in similar circumstances.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Mundo (2002)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"