The New York Court of Appeals says bicyclists should be treated the same as motorists when it comes to traffic stops.
Last week, in a narrow 4-3 decision, an appeals court sided with a New York City man who pleaded guilty to weapons charges after a police officer said his bicycle was moving erratically and struck his side with a large object. It was because I observed what was inside. pants. The Court of Appeal ruled that police had no legitimate reason for the search and that traffic stops involving bicycles are subject to the same standards as car stops.
Daniel Lambright, a senior staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, who filed a court brief in favor of the defendants, said bikers have to follow the same rules of the road as cars, so when they’re pulled over, they don’t have to. said they needed similar protection. .
“Cycling is often thought of as a leisurely activity, but it’s becoming more integrated into people’s daily lives,” he says. “It’s important to protect them and make sure they’re not stopped on a whim by simply suspicious officers.”
The decision states that a vehicle stop requires a higher level of probable cause than a foot interaction because it involves a display of “governmental authority.” The ruling says that being stopped by a police officer while riding a bicycle is a similar display of government power, and that similar protections are needed against illegal searches and seizures.
“If the individual is driving a car, you need what’s called reasonable suspicion. Stopping the car constitutes a seizure, so that requires a higher degree of belief,” he said.
Law enforcement agencies have criticized the move, with Peter Kehoe, executive director of the New York State Sheriff’s Association, arguing that the decision makes it difficult for officers to be proactive rather than reactive.
“Even if your gut tells you that something is wrong, you can’t stop them because you don’t have enough good reason or reasonable suspicion to stop them,” he said.
he said spectrum news 1 The previous standard, which treated cyclists the same as pedestrians, gave police officers the protection they needed to intervene if they saw something unusual.
“What happens is they err on the side of caution to avoid civil liability,” he says. “So there are going to be some crimes that should have been detected and could have been prevented.”
Lambright emphasizes that the goal here is primarily to prevent stops based on racial and economic factors. He points out that even if an officer has a legitimate concern that a crime is occurring, they still have tools at their disposal, such as waiting for a traffic violation to occur in order to make a constitutional stop.
“All of these stops are based on assumptions and stereotypes,” he said.
Although Mr. Kehoe does not feel that bias played any role in the majority of these suspensions and condemns all cases where bias is involved, he accepts the judgment and believes that courts should not take this direction. He emphasized that he was not necessarily surprised that he had moved on. He said the association had already sent guidance to departments, which would be communicated to MPs through the existing regular training systems in place.