Illegal Search and Seizure During Traffic Stops

A Routine Stop Should Not End with Your Rights Violated

Most drivers know the feeling, flashing lights in the rearview mirror, the sinking in your stomach, pulling to the side of the road. Sometimes it’s just a warning. Sometimes it’s a ticket. But for too many people in New York, a “routine” stop turns into something far more serious: officers insisting on searching cars, trunks, or even personal bags without a shred of justification.

The law is supposed to protect you. A traffic stop isn’t a blank check for police to do whatever they want. Yet many victims of illegal searches don’t realize what happened until long after the fact, when the evidence shows up in court.

At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ve listened to countless clients describe the same story: “I thought I had no choice.” But you do have rights, and police don’t get to rewrite the rules just because you’re on the side of the road.

What Police Can and Cannot Do During a Traffic Stop

The rules for traffic stops are grounded in both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution. Officers can pull drivers over if they have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. Once stopped, they may request license, registration, and insurance. They can run your plates.

But what they cannot do is search your vehicle without probable cause, a valid warrant, or clear consent. Probable cause means specific, articulable facts, not a hunch. Saying, “The driver looked nervous” is not enough.

New York courts have been especially clear about limiting the scope of these encounters. Under People v. De Bour, police authority is tiered, and officers can’t escalate a simple traffic stop into a full-blown investigation without good reason. That framework is what keeps drivers from being treated like suspects the moment they pull over.

Common Tactics Used to Justify Illegal Searches

Despite the rules, police often use tactics to stretch or sidestep them. Some of the most common include:

• Claiming to smell marijuana or alcohol. This is one of the easiest excuses for police to manufacture, and it often leads directly to a car search. In New York, since the legalization of marijuana, courts have narrowed how far this claim can go, but officers still rely on it.
• Asking “Do you mind if I look?” Officers sometimes phrase requests in ways that pressure drivers into consenting. If consent isn’t freely given, it’s not valid. Courts will scrutinize whether the driver truly had a choice.
• Fishing expeditions after a minor violation. A broken taillight should lead to a warning or ticket, not a trunk search. But many drivers find themselves in prolonged stops while officers “look for something.” Without probable cause, these searches violate both state and federal law.

These tactics are why drivers feel powerless. The imbalance of authority on the roadside makes it difficult to push back. But in court, these very same tactics often form the foundation of suppression motions.

Documenting Abuse During Vehicle Searches

If you’ve been searched illegally, details matter. Write down everything as soon as possible: what officers said, how long the stop lasted, whether they asked for consent, and whether they gave reasons for the search.

Under CPLR Article 31, attorneys can request dashcam or bodycam footage, police reports, and radio logs. These materials often tell a different story than what officers say in court. For example, if an officer claims to have smelled marijuana but says nothing about it in the first report, that inconsistency can sink their justification.

Witnesses also help. Passengers or even bystanders who saw the stop can testify about tone, length, or whether the driver ever agreed to a search. The stronger the documentation, the harder it is for prosecutors to defend what happened.

In Vermont, Police Have Broader Discretion at Stops Than in New York

State lines change the rules more than many people realize. In Vermont, courts have generally given police broader discretion during roadside encounters. That means officers there have more leeway to expand stops into searches, even with thinner justifications.

New York law draws sharper boundaries. Courts here have curtailed fishing expeditions, particularly under the De Bour framework, and they’ve been skeptical of consent when it’s given under obvious pressure. In practice, this makes it harder for New York officers to justify warrantless searches during traffic stops, at least when judges carefully apply the law.

For drivers, the lesson is simple: protections differ. In New York, you stand on firmer ground to challenge roadside searches than in states with broader allowances for police discretion.

How to Prove Your Stop Went Beyond the Law

Proving a stop went too far requires showing that officers exceeded their legal authority. That often involves comparing what they were allowed to do, check license, registration, address the traffic violation, with what they actually did.

For example, if a stop for speeding turned into 30 minutes of questioning about unrelated matters, courts often see that as overreach. If the officer’s stated reason doesn’t match the timeline or the evidence, that’s another red flag.

Lawyers press these points through motions to suppress under CPL §710.20. At suppression hearings, they challenge the officer’s credibility, highlight inconsistencies, and point to precedents like People v. Garcia, where courts ruled prolonged questioning without justification unlawful.

These hearings can make or break a case. If the stop itself was illegal, everything discovered after, the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” may be excluded.

Suppressing Evidence From Traffic-Stop Searches

When evidence is suppressed, it doesn’t just weaken the prosecution, it can dismantle the entire case. Drugs, weapons, or other contraband found in a vehicle can’t be used if they were seized unlawfully.

Courts in New York apply the exclusionary rule firmly in traffic-stop contexts. They’ve ruled that unlawful searches can’t be salvaged by later arguments or thin justifications. And if suppressed evidence formed the core of the charges, dismissal often follows.

Appellate courts reinforce this. Cases like People v. Bigelow demonstrate that when probable cause is lacking, suppression is the proper remedy. This consistent stance strengthens drivers’ ability to fight back against roadside abuses.

Horn Wright, LLP, Defends Victims of Unlawful Traffic Stop Searches

Nobody expects to lose their rights during a traffic stop. Yet for too many New Yorkers, that’s exactly what happens. At Horn Wright, LLP, we dig into every detail: the reports, the footage, the excuses offered after the fact. Our civil rights attorneys file suppression motions, challenge unlawful tactics, and fight to get tainted evidence thrown out. If your routine stop turned into an illegal search, we’ll make sure the courtroom sees it for what it was — a violation of your rights, plain and simple.