People v. SeverinoPeople v. Severino
Contrary to the People‘s contentions, the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime (see People v Stevenson, 7 AD3d 820 [2004]; People v Harris, 149 AD2d 730 [1989]; People v Lewis, 49 AD2d 558 [1975]). The officer briefly observed what he initially characterized only as a “bulge” on the right side of the defendant‘s pants. Despite this initial characterization, the officer later testified that he thought he had observed a holster, which turned out to be a buckle attached to the right side of the defendant‘s pants. This observation, without more, was not sufficient to permit the officer to forcibly detain the defendant (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 216 [1976]; People v Stevenson, 7 AD3d at 820; People v Moore, 176 AD2d 297, 299 [1991]). Accordingly, the physical evidence recovered from the defendant as a consequence of the unlawful detention and arrest should have been suppressed, and, without that evidence, there was no basis for the defendant‘s convictions of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.