PEOPLE, &., RESPONDENT, v. JAMES CARVEY, APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 707, 680 N.E.2d 150, 657 N.Y.S.2d 879 (1997).
May 1, 1997
1 No. 75 (1997 NY Int. 58)
Decided May 1, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Rosemary Herbert, for Appellant.
Deirdre Waldron Power, for Respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
Defendant, a passenger in an automobile stopped for a traffic
infraction, was arrested when the police discovered a gun under his
seat. Defendant challenges the legality of the search that took place
after he and the other occupants were removed from the vehicle. We are
thus called upon once again to determine whether information acquired
by the police during the course of a traffic stop justified further
intrusion into the interior of an automobile.
We agree with the courts below that the police action here was proper.
Defendant was wearing an article uniquely indicative of his present
readiness to use an available firearm--a bulletproof vest. This
salient fact, when coupled with the police observation of defendant
furtively placing something beneath his seat, warranted the conclusion
that a weapon located in the vehicle presented an actual and specific
threat to the officers' safety. In these particular circumstances, the
officers could lawfully reach into the vehicle, even after removing
the driver and passengers.
Facts
At 1:20 a.m. on July 29, 1992, Police Officer Mucciariello stopped a
white Cadillac with four occupants at Ninth Avenue and 26th Street in
Manhattan, because it had no rear license plate. He approached the
driver's side and asked for her license, registration and insurance
card. When the driver was unable to present any paperwork, the officer
returned to his patrol car to prepare a summons.
At that time, Police Officers Dalton and Mascaro arrived at the scene.
Knowing that Mucciariello was alone, they exited their vehicle to
SNIPPETS:
Defendant, a passenger in an automobile stopped for a traffic infraction, was arrested when
Defendant challenges the legality of the search that took place after he and the other
We are thus called upon once again to determine whether information acquired by the police
Defendant was wearing an article uniquely indicative of his present readiness to use an
This salient fact, when coupled with the police observation of defendant furtively placing
When the driver was unable to present any paperwork, the officer returned to his patrol car
As Dalton approached the Cadillac on the passenger side, he noticed defendant, in the rear
After crediting Dalton's testimony concerning his observations that evening, the suppression
The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, agreed with the suppression court and
As an initial matter, the Cadillac was lawfully stopped upon Officer Mucciariello's
Consequently, we held that, absent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to
In doing so, we rejected the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v Long
The Court articulated in Torres, however, a narrow exception to this rule.
"Indeed, there may well be circumstances where, following a lawful stop, facts revealed
Defendant urges that the police here had even less reason than in Torres to believe there was
We distinguished bullets from other lawful items incidentally related to guns--such as
Bullets, by contrast, "have no other practical use than as ammunition for a deadly weapon"
|
