People v. Howell
| Citation | 403 N.E.2d 182,426 N.Y.S.2d 477,49 N.Y.2d 778 |
| Parties | , 403 N.E.2d 182 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eddie HOWELL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1980 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress granted, and the plea vacated.
The trial court was in error in its conclusion that merely because reckless driving is a misdemeanor rather than a traffic violation, the arrest was inevitable. An arrest in a situation such as was presented in this case was neither called for nor the preferred procedure (see Denzer, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 150.20).
Based on no more than what the police considered to be erratic driving on the part of the defendant, they approached the defendant with guns drawn and proceeded to "frisk" the defendant. The police officer testified at the suppression hearing that this search was conducted on his belief that the defendant might be armed; however, there is no testimony or finding as to what circumstances led the police officer to that conclusion.
The defendant was never informed that he was under arrest for reckless driving and was never charged with that offense. As we observed in People v. Troiano, 35 N.Y.2d 476, 478, 363 N.Y.S.2d 943, 945, 323 N.E.2d 183, 185: "There is, perhaps, an area of traffic violation 'arrest' where a full-blown search is not justified, but it might seem to be confined to a situation where an arrest was not necessary because an alternative summons was available or because the arrest was a suspect pretext (cf. People v. Marsh, 20 N.Y.2d 98, 281 N.Y.S.2d 789, 228 N.E.2d 783; People v. Adams, 32 N.Y.2d 451, 455, 346 N.Y.S.2d 229, 231, 299 N.E.2d 653, 655, and dissenting opn. at pp. 456-457, 346 N.Y.S.2d at pp. 232-233, 299 N.E.2d at p. 656; but see A. L. I., Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure (O.D. No. 1, 1972), § SS230.2, including, however, the accompanying note)."
On the facts of this case, the police conduct would fall within that rule.
Order reversed, motion to suppress granted, plea vacated and indictment dismissed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pealer
...323 N.E.2d 183 [1974] [suggesting that the rule of Marsh applies only “where an arrest was not necessary”]; People v. Howell, 49 N.Y.2d 778, 426 N.Y.S.2d 477, 403 N.E.2d 182 [1980] [suppressing evidence in reliance on Marsh and Troiano ] ). Today's dissent would hold that, under the State C......
-
People v. Bulgin
...the legality of the stop, however, defendant challenges the propriety of his full-blown arrest, relying on People v. Howell, 49 N.Y.2d 778, 426 N.Y.S.2d 477, 403 N.E.2d 182 (1980), and People v. Marsh, 20 N.Y.2d 98, 281 N.Y.S.2d 789, 228 N.E.2d 783 (1967). Defendant argues that Officer O'Dw......
-
People v. Behlin
...reason for such a search. (See People v. Marsh, 20 N.Y.2d 98, 281 N.Y.S.2d 789, 228 N.E.2d 783; see, also, People v. Howell, 49 N.Y.2d 778, 426 N.Y.S.2d 477, 403 N.E.2d 182; People v. Adams, 32 N.Y.2d 451, 346 N.Y.S.2d 229, 299 N.E.2d 653.) Even assuming that the discovery of the clip, whic......
-
People v. Bradford
...was a suspect pretext (People v. Marsh, 20 N.Y.2d 98;People v. Adams, 32 N.Y.2d 451).” Finally, in 1980, the Court of Appeals in People v. Howell, 49 N.Y.2d 778 re-affirmed its holding in Troiano, in a case where the police had observed the defendant drive away from a traffic light at a hig......