IN THE MATTER OF MUHAMMAD F., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT,
RESPONDENT, PRESENTMENT AGENCY, APPELLANT.
94 N.Y.2d 136 (1999).
November 30, 1999
1 No. 160
(99 NY Int. 0160)
Decided November 30, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. KEITH BOSWELL, APPELLANT.
99 N.Y. Int. 0160.
November 30, 1999
1 No. 161
(99 NY Int. 0160)
Decided November 30, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
99 N.Y. Int. 0160.
November 30, 1999
Case No. 160:
(99 NY Int. 0160)
Decided November 30, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
These appeals arise out of motions to suppress evidenceintroduced
against occupants of taxicabs that were stopped by police officers
assigned to a Taxi-Livery Task Force in New York City. The procedure
of the police was essentially the same in both cases. The officers
were in plain clothes, using unmarked police cars, on a roving patrol.
They selected a location in an area having a high incidence of taxi
robberies. In the absence of probable cause, suspicious behavior or
any illegal activity on the part of the driver or passengers, they
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF MUHAMMAD F., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, RESPONDENT,
These appeals arise out of motions to suppress evidenceintroduced against occupants of
In the absence of probable cause, suspicious behavior or any illegal activity on the part of
The purpose of the stops was to provide a "safety check," to give the drivers crime
we conclude that the stops in both of these cases were unreasonable seizures violating the
In Muhammad F., two police officers wearing civilian clothes and driving in an unmarked
The third vehicle the officers saw which they believed to be an occupied taxicab was the
Supreme Court denied Muhammad F.'s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the evidence against respondent was the product
In Boswell, defendant was arrested by a plainclothes Sergeant and patrolman belonging to the
The officers, both in plain clothes, were working a night shift on February 27, 1995, when
A brief, suspicionless stop of an automobile, while far less intrusive than a traditional
The reasonableness of such a seizure "depends 'on a balance between the public interest and
A critical requirement for all such seizures relates to the "central concern * * * that an
In Michigan Dept. of State Police v Sitz, the Supreme Court stated that the balancing
Employing these standards, in United States v Brignoni-Ponce, the Court had previously held
The roving-patrol stop was described as follows: "a fixed checkpoint * * * was closed because
On appeal here, defendant/appellant Boswell argues that the police were engaged in a roving
|
