## Facts

- Late one winter night in Queens, NYPD officers in an unmarked car observed Lance Rodriguez riding a bicycle on a two-way road.
- Officers pulled alongside Rodriguez and twice commanded him to stop, escalating the command after he did not immediately comply.
- After the stop, officers questioned Rodriguez; he stated he had a gun in his waistband, and officers recovered a firearm.
- Rodriguez was indicted on weapons charges.
- At a suppression hearing, an officer testified that Rodriguez rode down the middle of the road causing cars to slow or go around him, rode with one hand, and kept his other hand at his waistband holding a “bulky” object.
- No traffic summons was issued.
- The trial court denied suppression; Rodriguez pleaded guilty to a weapons offense while preserving his suppression challenge.
- The Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the officers’ commands to a bicyclist to stop constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and N.Y. Const. art. I, § 12.
2. Whether the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation.
3. Whether the firearm and Rodriguez’s admission were suppressible fruits of an unconstitutional stop.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed and held the officers’ conduct constituted a seizure.
- The Court held that police interference with a bicyclist is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense or probable cause of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation.
- The Court found neither reasonable suspicion nor VTL probable cause on this record:
  - Riding near the center of the roadway, without identifying a specific VTL violation given the road’s markings and conditions, did not establish probable cause.
  - Riding one-handed was not shown to violate the VTL and was not indicative of criminal conduct.
  - A hand near the waistband holding an unidentified “bulky” object, coupled with the officer’s uncertainty, did not supply specific, objective facts supporting weapon-related suspicion.
- The Court ordered suppression of the firearm and statements as direct products of the unlawful stop, and ordered dismissal of the indictment.

## Legal Principles

- A command to stop that communicates official compulsion, such that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore it, constitutes a seizure.
- A bicyclist stop based on police interference requires either reasonable suspicion of a crime or probable cause of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation.
- Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts and rational inferences that criminal activity is occurring; a hunch or generalized concern is insufficient.
- Physical evidence and statements obtained as direct fruits of an unlawful seizure must be suppressed absent attenuation; where suppression removes the evidentiary basis for prosecution, dismissal is required.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that officers seized Rodriguez when they twice commanded him to stop, and that the observations cited did not establish reasonable suspicion of a crime or probable cause of a traffic violation; the resulting firearm recovery and admission were suppressed, requiring dismissal of the indictment.


People v. Rodriguez, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05972 (N.Y. 2023)