New York Law Review

Tag: Passenger Rights

  • People v. Carvey, 74 N.Y.2d 707 (1989): Authority to Order Passengers Out of Lawfully Stopped Vehicles

    74 N.Y.2d 707 (1989)

    During a lawful traffic stop, police officers may order both the driver and passengers to exit the vehicle without any particularized suspicion of danger, as such action is a reasonable safety precaution.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that police officers, during a lawful traffic stop, may order a passenger to exit the vehicle as a precautionary measure. In this case, the vehicle was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation. An officer directed the passenger, Carvey, to step out. With the door open, a gun was visible, leading to Carvey’s arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, stating the Fourth Amendment permits such precautionary measures for passenger safety, regardless of specific suspicion, because the risks to officers during a traffic stop are the same whether the occupant is a driver or passenger.

    Facts

    Two police officers observed a car make an unsignaled right turn from the left lane across the flow of traffic, cutting off another vehicle. The officers initiated a traffic stop. One officer approached the driver’s side, while the other approached the passenger side, where Carvey was seated. The officer directed Carvey to step out of the car. With the passenger door open, the butt of a loaded handgun was plainly visible, protruding from under the seat. The gun was seized, and Carvey was arrested. A subsequent search revealed additional ammunition in Carvey’s pocket.

    Procedural History

    After his arrest, Carvey moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer’s order to exit the vehicle was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The suppression motion was denied, and Carvey was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Carvey appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when a police officer orders a passenger out of a lawfully stopped vehicle without any particularized suspicion of danger.

    Holding

    No, because the inherent danger to police officers during a lawful traffic stop justifies the precautionary measure of ordering a passenger to exit the vehicle, regardless of any particularized suspicion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Pennsylvania v. Mimms and New York v. Class, which established that officers may order a driver out of a vehicle during a traffic stop, even without a specific reason to believe the driver is armed. The court extended this principle to passengers, reasoning that the risks to officers are the same whether the occupant is a driver or a passenger. The court reasoned that brief, uniform precautionary procedures are not per se unreasonable or unconstitutional. The court stated, “police may order persons out of an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation.” The court also emphasized that the evidence at the suppression hearing supported the determination that requiring the defendant to step from the car was reasonable under the particular facts and pertinent federal guideposts. The court declined to address any potential violations of the New York State Constitution because the issue was not properly preserved for appeal.

  • People v. McLaurin, 70 N.Y.2d 779 (1987): Passenger’s Rights During Lawful Traffic Stops

    People v. McLaurin, 70 N.Y.2d 779 (1987)

    When a vehicle is lawfully stopped, an officer’s decision to order a passenger out of the vehicle must be justified by a reasonable suspicion directed at the passenger, based on specific and articulable facts, or by concerns for the officer’s safety based on the totality of the circumstances.

    Summary

    McLaurin was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision upholding the conviction. The key issue was whether the officer’s order for the passenger (McLaurin) to exit a vehicle, lawfully stopped for speeding, was a violation of the passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held that the officer’s actions were justified given the totality of circumstances which included the late hour, desolate location, the car’s suspicious movements (speeding then driving slowly without headlights), and the officer’s concern for safety. The court declined to rule on whether the Mimms rule applies automatically to passengers.

    Facts

    Around midnight, in a desolate area of the Bronx known for high crime, police officers in an unmarked car observed a red car speeding. The car made a sudden turn onto a street lined with abandoned buildings, and officers saw it rolling slowly along the curb with no headlights. The officers stopped the car. The officer asked the passenger, McLaurin, what they were doing, and McLaurin replied that they had just stopped for a moment. The officer then asked McLaurin to step out of the car. As McLaurin opened the car door, the officer saw the bulge of a small caliber revolver tucked into McLaurin’s jacket. McLaurin was arrested.

    Procedural History

    McLaurin was convicted upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after the denial of his motion to suppress the weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. McLaurin appealed, arguing that the officer’s order for him to exit the vehicle was an unlawful intrusion. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, during a lawful traffic stop, an officer can order a passenger to exit the vehicle without any reasonable suspicion directed at the passenger, based solely on the driver’s unlawful conduct.

    Holding

    No, not necessarily because the court found additional factors beyond the driver’s conduct justified the officer’s actions in this specific case. While the Court declined to establish a blanket rule, it held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer was justified in ordering McLaurin out of the car due to concerns for the officers’ safety, based on the desolate location, the late hour, and the vehicle’s suspicious behavior.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged the Supreme Court’s holding in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which allows an officer to order the driver out of a vehicle lawfully stopped for a traffic infraction, based on the inherent danger to the officer. However, the Court explicitly stated that it did not need to decide whether the Mimms rationale automatically applies to passengers. The Court emphasized that the “reasonableness is the touchstone of our inquiry into the propriety of police conduct” and that the degree of intrusion must be weighed against the conditions confronted. The Court found that the additional factors beyond the traffic violation—the abandoned area, late hour, and the car’s slow movement without headlights—created sufficient suspicion to justify the officer’s concern for safety. The court reasoned that ordering McLaurin out of the car was a minimal intrusion necessary to allow the officers to investigate the driver’s credentials safely. The court cited People v. Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 475, quoting People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 in its analysis. The court determined that the officer was justified to ensure the safety of both officers given the de minimis intrusion.