The People &c., Respondent, v. Hector Batista, Appellant.
88 N.Y.2d 650, 672 N.E.2d 581, 649 N.Y.S.2d 356 (1996).
October 15, 1996
1 No. 189 (1996 NY Int. 187)
Decided October 15, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Howard R. Birnbach, for appellant.
Elizabeth F. Bernhardt, for respondent.
SMITH, J.:
The issue on this appeal relates to the defendant s right to
be free from an illegal search and seizure (Articles IV and XIV of the
Federal Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of
the New York State Constitution). A police officer, after lawfully
stopping a cab in which defendant was a passenger, had his suspicions
aroused by his personal observation of defendant's movements and false
response to an inquiry. At this point, the officer touched defendant's
sweatshirt covering a bulletproof vest and, subsequently, discovered a
weapon. Under the circumstances presented, we agree with both lower
courts that the officer s action in touching defendant's sweatshirt
was reasonable. The order of the Appellate Division should be
affirmed.
At about 3:00 a.m., on February 20, 1992, two uniformed
police officers, Officer Ronda and Officer Caban, were patrolling in a
marked police car in the Bronx. Seeing a livery cab go
through a red light on the Grand Concourse, the officers pulled the
cab over. As the police car came to a stop, both officers noticed
defendant -- the sole passenger in the cab -- shift from his seat
behind the driver to the middle of the backseat. Defendant's movement
drew the attention of both officers who thought it was "unusual."
Although the street was brightly lit, it was 3:00 a.m. and
Officer Ronda carried a flashlight. While the cab driver was handing
over his paperwork, Officer Ronda shone his light into
the cab, to see the occupants hands, paying "special attention" to
defendant.
Officer Ronda then noticed that defendant was "wearing a
large object protruding from his chest." Defendant wore a sweatshirt
and an unbuttoned leather coat over what Officer Ronda believed to be
SNIPPETS:
The People &c., Respondent, v. Hector Batista, Appellant.
The issue on this appeal relates to the defendant s right to be free from an illegal search
A police officer, after lawfully stopping a cab in which defendant was a passenger, had his
we agree with both lower courts that the officer s action in touching defendant's sweatshirt
As the police car came to a stop, both officers noticed defendant -- the sole passenger in
Although the street was brightly lit, it was 3:00 a.m. and Officer Ronda carried a flashlight.
While the cab driver was handing over his paperwork, Officer Ronda shone his light into the
Defendant wore a sweatshirt and an unbuttoned leather coat over what Officer Ronda believed
Officer Ronda was familiar with the appearance of bulletproof vests because he wore one every
Opening the cab s left rear door, Officer Ronda leaned his head in and asked, "What do you
Believing that defendant was "avoiding" him, Officer Ronda then touched defendant on the
His attention drawn to where the defendant had suddenly pressed his hands, Officer Ronda
At that point, fearing for his safety, the officer grabbed the pocket, felt a gun, and called
It was later discovered that this same gun was the weapon used to kill Mark Santiago, a
On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction and held that Officer
The touchstone of any analysis of a governmental invasion of a citizen's person under the
People v Chestnut (51 NY2d 14,
Under the facts here,
A "frisk," defined as a "pat-down" of the outer clothing of a suspect, may be justified on
The answer to the question propounded by the policeman may be a bullet; in any case the
The officer must have knowledge of some fact or circumstance that supports a reasonable
The facts giving rise to the constitutionally permissible intrusion by the officer are not
As this Court noted in People v Moore:
Although a bulletproof vest is properly linked to the inference that the wearer might be
|
