In People v. Rice , the Appellate Division, First Department, overturned an order which suppressed evidence secured during the course of a traffic stop.
On September 7, 2005, Officers Hoffman and Brennan, on patrol in an unmarked vehicle, pulled over a rental car after twice observing the driver change lanes across the width of Amsterdam Avenue without signaling.
Hoffman asked the driver, Wayne Rice, for his driver's license and vehicle registration. While Rice produced a valid license, the rental agreement was in the name of "Sylena Cole." When Hoffman inquired about the discrepancy, Rice produced an agreement in his name, and which was otherwise almost identical to Cole's, but reflected that the car had been due back at the rental company two days earlier.
Not surprisingly, Hoffman thought the exchange odd. Although the car had not been reported, the officers suspected that it may have been recently stolen.
Rice was unable to explain why there were two rental agreements. And when Hoffman asked Rice why he was in the neighborhood, the latter nervously and agitatedly answered that he was "getting a haircut," but could not say where, nor how long he had been in the area.
After Rice denied possessing a weapon, the officer asked Rice to step out of the vehicle, and immediately noticed a knife hanging from Rice's belt. He continued to search him, and noticed "an abnormal, unnatural bulge in defendant's groin area."
Rice eloquently explained that the bulge was his "balls."
When Hoffman frisked that area again, Rice yelled to onlookers that Hoffman was touching his "private parts" (as the court more politely termed them).
Since Hoffman knew from experience that narcotics are often hidden in the groin area, and with his suspicion piqued by the incongruous rental agreements, he arrested Rice. Upon searching him at the police station, $1,849 was found on his person together with a tennis ball-sized bag of cocaine in Rice's underwear.
The New York County Supreme Court granted Rice's motion to suppress the physical evidence on the grounds that his traffic stop was illegal. According that that court's reading of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL), a "lane change" is not a "turn," and thus no signal was required. Since he had not broken a traffic law, the Supreme Court reasoned that the traffic stop was illegal and thus any evidence collected as a result was inadmissible.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department examined the VTL's language and legislative history and ultimately concluded that a signal was required. As a result, the traffic stop was legal, and the prosecution was permitted to introduce at trial whatever evidence was taken from Rice's pants.
You could say this case "turned" on a pretty big pair.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Rice