The People of the State of New York v. Paul Thomas, Defendant. (2026)

This Court granted a motion for a hearing to determine whether to determine whether the traffic stop and subsequent search were supported by the requisite level of probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution. The matter came on for a hearing on January 12, 2026, at which testimony was taken from New York State Police Investigator Michael Moore, NYSP Trooper Joseph Edinger and NYSP Trooper Sean Rohde. Body worn camera recordings were admitted into evidence as People's Exhibits 1 and 2.

Facts

Investigator Moore testified that he was advised by the Vermont State Police, in particular, an analyst named Paul Jardine (ph), that Paul Thomas and a blue 2014 Subaru Outback with a Vermont registration of KVH879 were involved in "narcotics trafficking." Vermont State Police had not charged Mr. Thomas with a crime, and Investigator Moore did not recall the particulars of the tip. Investigator Moore testified that he had received reliable and credible information from Paul Jardine previously.

As a result of the tip Investigator Moore searched the license plate reader data for the Vermont registration KVH879. He determined the vehicle had made "several trips from upstate New York/Vermont region to New York City with short stays and return trips back." Investigator Moore concluded that because of the travel pattern, and the fact that New York City is a large source city of narcotics and firearms, that the vehicle was involved in criminal behavior. Investigaor Moore also opined that Bennington and Rutland Vermont are also "known source city (sic)" for narcotics distribution.

Investigator Moore then entered the plate into the Westchester County license plate reader system. There was no testimony that utilization of the license plate reader system was authorized by a detached magistrate. Investigator Moore also alerted Trooper Rohde, a K-9 drug dog handler, of this investigation, and that Trooper Rohde should be available from a dog search of the car when and if the car passed the license plate readers northbound.

Investigator Moore received a notification from the license plate reader system which told him that the vehicle was northbound on the parkway on February 15, 2025. Investigator Moore then surveilled the vehicle and observed "numerous vehicle and traffic law violations." He testified that he visually estimated that the vehicle exceeded the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour, and that he observed the vehicle change lanes on the parkway without signaling.

Having made these observations, Investigator Moore radioed car-to-car to uniformed Trooper Edinger to make the traffic stop. Trooper Edinger effectuated a traffic stop at approximately 9:25 AM. Trooper Edinger testified that upon stopping, Mr. Thomas, the driver of the car and sole occupant, could be observed making suspicious movements toward the back seat. The body camera footage observed by the Court does not reveal any such movements.

Mr. Thomas admitted to Trooper Edinger that he was stopped on January 23, 2025 on the New York State Thruway. The body camera footage shows that the ticket Mr. Thomas handed Trooper Edinger was issued in the Town of Ulster, the vehicle was northbound, and the ticket was for "conduct which interferes with the orderly and safe flow of traffic."

Trooper Edinger testified that Mr. Thomas appeared to become nervous when he saw the plainclothes Investigator arrive. He asserted, contrary to the Court's experience, that he found people "become more comforted" when more and more police arrive at their traffic stop. Trooper Edinger did not write tickets for the speeding or the lane changes at the time of the traffic stop, presumably because the actual goal of the traffic stop was to employ a dog to search the car.

Investigator Moore testified that Mr. Thomas had lied about his travel. According to Investigator Moore, Mr. Thomas stated he was ticketed on the New York State Thruway for speeding on Thursday, January 23, 2025 on his way to Vermont, where he stayed until February 15, 2025. According to Investigator Moore, the license plate reader revealed the vehicle had left Vermont on Thursday, February 13, 2025, and returned to New York until the travel on February 15, 2025.

The body camera footage captures a conversation in which Mr. Thomas states he was in the city for a week after undergoing surgery on or around February 3, 2025. Trooper Edinger is seen to press Mr. Thomas for the details about his travel and the dates of his surgery, until Mr. Thomas offered to show him the documentation from his doctor.

Mr. Thomas was removed from his car and informed that his driving privileges were, in fact, suspended. Investigator Moore informed Mr. Thomas that his vehicle was going to be towed, and inventoried due to the license suspension. He was also informed that Trooper Rohde would bring a trained dog to sniff the vehicle. Trooper Rohde arrived at 9:44 AM.

Trooper Rohde testified that while the dog was walked around the car, his breathing changed around the driver's side door, and the dog started to bracket, i.e. weaving back and forth. The body camera footage showed the dog being walked five or six times around the car, encouraged by Trooper Rohde's commands "where is it?" and "show me." The dog is not on camera, so the Court is unable to determine whether the dog showed a response to odor, as described by Trooper Rohde's testimony. The dog eventually can be seen on body camera jumping up into the open driver's window.¹ Trooper Rohde then searched the car, locating a scale in the glove compartment at 9:54 AM, and a black plastic shopping bag on the rear seat of the car containing cocaine at 9:56 AM.

Law

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution protect civilians from unreasonable searches and seizures. People v. Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 350 (2001).

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. United States Constitution, 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. New York State Constitution Article I, Section 12.

The State Police investigation of Mr. Thomas began with a tip from Vermont state police analyst Paul Jardine. "Under the fellow officer rule, "even if an arresting officer lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, the arrest will be lawful if the officer 'acts upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a superior or fellow officer or another police department provided that the police as a whole were in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause to make the arrest' " People v. Palacios, No. 28, 2026 WL 1026306, at *2 (NY Apr. 16, 2026), quoting People v. Ramirez—Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 113 (1996). The fellow officer rule is not exempt from analysis pursuant to Aguillar-Spinelli factors; reliability and basis of knowledge must be adequately demonstrated to the Court. People v. Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 420 (1999).

There is no record evidence that Mr. Jardine's tip to Investigator Moore was anything but a conclusory allegation of narcotics trafficking. "[B]are reliance on an unsubstantiated hearsay communication from the instigating officer or department will not suffice for probable cause. Ultimately, to sustain their burden at the suppression hearing the People must demonstrate that the sender or sending agency itself possessed the requisite probable cause to act." People v. Lypka, 36 NY2d 210, 214 (1975).

Absent a recitation of facts conveyed to Investigator Moore constituting probable cause to believe Mr. Thomas was involved in narcotic's trafficking, the Court cannot find support for the surveillance or targeting of Mr. Thomas.

The Court was not furnished with dash camera footage to see whether Mr. Thomas in fact changed lanes without signaling, or was traveling in excess of the posted speed limit, as described by Investigator Moore. Nevertheless, Trooper Edinger was entitled to rely on that information in initiating a traffic stop of Mr. Thomas' car under the fellow officer rule. Thus, the Court finds that the traffic stop is supported by the requisite level of suspicion. People v. Martin, 156 AD3d 956, 957 (3d Dep't 2017).

The conversation Trooper Edinger had with Mr. Thomas, in conjunction with the license plate reader information, is held up to the Court as a basis for the subsequent dog search of the car. Investigator Moore's testimony characterizes Mr. Thomas as "lying" to the Trooper, in that he allegedly claimed to have been in Vermont, when the license plate readers showed that the vehicle under surveillance was in New York City. Upon a review of the body camera recording, it becomes apparent that Mr. Thomas told the Trooper that he was in New York City for surgery on or around February 3, 2025 and had been in New York City following that procedure. Based upon the fact that Mr. Thomas was stopped heading north on February 15, 2025, the Court is unable to discern the falsehood. The Court was neither provided with documentation of the license plate readers employed to track the vehicle,² nor the data that was employed to verify Mr. Thomas' account of his whereabouts on any specific dates. The Court is unable to pinpoint the inconsistencies testified to by the law enforcement officers in this case.

The fact that Mr. Thomas was traveling between two population centers is urged to contribute to a rising level of suspicion here.³ Investigator Moore described New York City, and two cities in Vermont -Bennington and Rutland, as known source cities for narcotics. Even assuming that the entire city of New York, and the cities of Bennington and Rutland are in fact narcotics hubs, which this Court is not convinced of, "this factor alone cannot serve as the justification for untoward or excessive police behavior against those of our citizens who happen to live, work or travel in what are characterized as 'high crime areas.' " People v. Wilson, 175 AD2d 15, 18 (1st Dep't 1991).

Arrests are made of individuals, not of neighborhoods. When we single out the latter, more likely than not congested areas peopled in the main by those who are socially and economically deprived, we subject all its residents, the vast majority of whom are sure to be free of criminal taint, to an immeasurably greater risk of invasion than those who live elsewhere. The inevitable result is a measurable abridgement of the Fourth Amendment's protection against police intrusions conducted without sufficient justification. People v. McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 606—07 (1980) (Fuchsberg, J. Concurrence).

The mischaracterization of urban areas as entirely awash with controlled substances cannot provide a rational basis for increasing the level of suspicion in this case.

An informational inquiry, "basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination" for the purposes of issuing a ticket, is also proper. People v. Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185 (1992). "Once the officer asks more pointed questions that would lead the person approached reasonably to believe that he or she is suspected of some wrongdoing and is the focus of the officer's investigation, the officer is no longer merely seeking information. This has become a common-law inquiry that must be supported by a founded suspicion that criminality is afoot." People v. Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185 (1992). Trooper Edinger's roadside interrogation of Mr. Thomas' movements is properly characterized as a common-law inquiry, irrelevant to the issuance of a ticket, and clearly designed to prolong the traffic stop and manufacture inconsistent statements that would serve to increase the level of suspicion. The Court here finds that Mr. Thomas did not lie to the Trooper, and consequently his statements did not escalate the level of suspicion.

Mr. Thomas' demeanor was characterized as "nervous" when more and more police arrived at the traffic stop. The Court did not observe nervousness on the body camera footage. In any case, any such nervousness would be, in the Court's estimation, a normal response to multiple police vehicles arriving on scene for what should be a routine traffic stop. The Court of Appeals has stated a defendant's "nervousness and the innocuous discrepancies" in response to "questions regarding the origin, destination and timing of their trip did not alone, as a matter of law, provide a basis for reasonable suspicion of criminality." People v. Banks, 85 NY2d 558, 562 (1995).

The common-law inquiry conducted by Trooper Edinger, i.e., the close questioning of Mr. Thomas in order to compare his answers to license plate reader data, prolonged the traffic stop in a manner which does not comport with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitituion and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution. "The proper standard for detaining an individual beyond the time reasonably required to complete a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion." People v. Desronvil, 87 Misc 3d 1241(A), 244 N.Y.S.3d 475 (Columbia County Ct. 2025) quoting People v. Thomas, 42 NY3d 236, 240 (2024), quoting Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 350-51 (2015).

The People urges the Court to apply the inevitable discovery doctrine, arguing that the contraband discovered in the vehicle would have been found anyway, as Mr. Thomas' license was suspended. However, the inevitable discovery rule does not apply "where, as here, the evidence sought to be suppressed is the very evidence obtained in the illegal search." People v. Stith, 69 NY2d 313, 318 (1987). "[P]rimary evidence, i.e., the very evidence obtained during or as the immediate consequence of the illegal conduct, would still be subject to exclusion even if it would most likely have been discovered in the course of routine police procedures." People v. Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 87 (1997), citing Stith, supra. Despite the fact that the car would have been towed and inventoried, the contraband must be suppressed. By the law enforcement officer's own admission, the contraband was the goal even before Mr. Thomas was stopped. He can be seen on the body camera recording protesting that he is being profiled, which seems to be a reasonable conclusion to be drawn here.

This "case illustrates a troubling aspect of police behavior: law enforcement can pursue someone they suspect of criminal behavior without a founded suspicion of criminality, wait for the right moment to stop that person for a minor traffic infraction, and then serve up a stew of flavorless facts to transform a stop in which they have no intrinsic interest into the search they sought before they had any evidentiary basis to suspect wrongdoing." People v. Blandford, 37 NY3d 1062, 1067, (2021) (Wilson in dissent).

In the absence of reasonable cause to prolong the traffic stop for the purpose of a car search, the evidence obtained as a result of the stop and search of the vehicle on February 15, 2025, is therefore suppressed from use at trial.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 27, 2026

Hudson, New York

ENTER:

Michael C. Howard, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to Trooper Rohde's testimony and logic, a drug sniffing dog should have immediately hit on the open driver's window, as a plume of odor would be escaping therefrom. It is notable that this did not happen in this case.

2.   The Court notes that the tracking of the vehicle does not necessarily equate the the tracking of Mr. Thomas' whereabouts, since the car could have been operated by someone else.

3.   The Court notes that Mr. Thomas was not located in a "high crime area," but on a public highway, traveling between cities.

Michael C. Howard, J.