New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Carvey

  • People v. Carvey, 89 N.Y.2d 707 (1997): Justifying a Vehicle Search Based on Specific Threats to Officer Safety

    People v. Carvey, 89 N.Y.2d 707 (1997)

    When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and an articulable basis to fear for their safety, they may intrude upon a suspect’s person or personal effects only to the extent necessary to protect themselves from harm; however, specific facts, like wearing a bulletproof vest and furtive movements, can justify a vehicle search even after occupants are removed.

    Summary

    Carvey was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. Officers noticed Carvey wearing a bulletproof vest and saw him making a furtive movement as if placing something under his seat. After removing all occupants from the car, officers searched the area under Carvey’s seat and found a gun. The New York Court of Appeals held that the search was justified because the bulletproof vest, combined with the furtive movement, gave the officers a reasonable basis to believe a weapon was present and posed an immediate threat to their safety. This case clarifies the exception to the rule that a vehicle search is unlawful once suspects are removed and patted down without incident.

    Facts

    At 1:20 a.m., police stopped a car for lacking a rear license plate. An officer noticed Carvey, a passenger in the rear seat, bend down and place something under the seat with his right hand. The officer also observed that Carvey was wearing a bulletproof vest under his sweatshirt. All four occupants were removed from the car. After patting Carvey down, an officer reached into the car under the rear passenger seat and recovered a gun from the spot where Carvey had been seated.

    Procedural History

    Carvey moved to suppress the weapon and his subsequent statements, arguing they were the result of an unconstitutional search. The suppression court denied the motion, finding the stop and subsequent search lawful. Carvey pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed the suppression court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, after lawfully stopping a vehicle and removing its occupants, police officers may conduct a search of the vehicle’s interior based on reasonable suspicion of a weapon, when the suspect was wearing a bulletproof vest and made furtive movements.

    Holding

    Yes, because the combination of Carvey wearing a bulletproof vest and his act of placing something under the seat gave the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that a weapon was in the vehicle and presented an actual and specific danger to their safety.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holding in People v. Torres, which established a narrow exception to the general rule that a vehicle search is unlawful once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident. The court emphasized that while reasonable suspicion alone is insufficient, facts that lead to the conclusion that a weapon presents an actual and specific danger to officer safety can justify a further intrusion. The court distinguished this case from Torres, where an anonymous tip was deemed insufficient, and People v. Ellis, where bullets found during a frisk provided probable cause for a search. The Court reasoned that a bulletproof vest, unlike an empty holster, demonstrates a readiness and willingness to use a deadly weapon. Combined with Carvey’s suspicious movements, this created a reasonable belief that a weapon was present and posed a threat. As the court noted, “[t]he whole purpose of the wearing of the vest is to make it more feasible to go armed, [and] to enhance the advantage of doing so.” The court emphasized that the intrusion was limited to the area where Carvey had been seated. The court explicitly declined to address whether probable cause to search the entire vehicle existed, as that issue had not been decided below.

  • People v. Carvey, 74 N.Y.2d 907 (1989): Justifying a Search Incident to a Lawful Stop for Officer Safety

    People v. Carvey, 74 N.Y.2d 907 (1989)

    During a lawful traffic stop, a police officer may conduct a limited search of items within the immediate reach of a vehicle’s occupant if it is reasonably necessary to ensure the officer’s safety.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a police officer’s action of shining a flashlight into a plastic bag at a suspect’s feet during a lawful traffic stop was justified for officer safety. The court reasoned that because the bag was within the suspect’s immediate reach while he was still in the vehicle, a cursory examination was permissible to ensure it did not contain a weapon or other dangerous instrumentality. This case distinguishes itself from cases where the suspect is removed from the vehicle before the search.

    Facts

    Police Officer Sherlock received a report of an abduction involving men in a grey Volvo. He spotted a matching vehicle and pulled it over. Sergeant Rivera, arriving on the scene, noticed a plastic bag at defendant Carvey’s feet, who was a passenger. Without opening the bag, Sergeant Rivera shined his flashlight through it, suspected it contained marihuana, and ordered Carvey out. A subsequent search revealed a loaded revolver on Carvey’s person.

    Procedural History

    Carvey was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon. He moved to suppress the evidence seized during the arrest, arguing the search was unlawful. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion after a Mapp hearing. Carvey pleaded guilty, and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, during a lawful traffic stop, Sergeant Rivera exceeded the permissible scope of the stop by reaching into the car and shining his flashlight through the plastic bag at defendant’s feet?

    Holding

    No, because the sergeant’s actions were reasonably necessary to ensure that the bag, which was well within defendant’s immediate reach, did not contain a weapon or some other instrumentality that posed a threat to the officers’ safety.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the search was justified under the circumstances to protect the officers. The court distinguished this case from People v. Torres, where a search of a bag after the suspect had been removed from the vehicle was deemed unlawful. In Torres, the court found that isolating the suspect negated the need to protect officer safety via an immediate search of the bag. Here, because Carvey was still in the car and the bag was within his reach, the police were justified in conducting the limited examination. The court emphasized the importance of officer safety during traffic stops, stating that the “cursory examination of the bag occurred while defendant was still sitting in the car. Since, at that point, the bag was still within defendant’s reach, the police were justified in examining it.” The court applied the principle that searches incident to a lawful stop must be “reasonably related to the need to protect the officers’ safety”. The court cited Terry v. Ohio in support of the principle that police officers can take reasonable steps to ensure their safety during an encounter with a suspect.

  • 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.