The New York Court of Appeals recently issued a groundbreaking ruling strengthening Fourth Amendment protections for individuals on bicycles, affirming that cyclists should be treated the same as motor vehicle drivers when it comes to initiating traffic stops.
The decision, with a tight 4–3 majority, sets an important precedent for the rights of cyclists and the limitations on law enforcement.
The case leading to this decision originated in 2014 when Lance Rodriguez, riding a bicycle in the Far Rockaway neighborhood of Queens, was arrested by police who claimed to have observed something “bulky” in his pants, later revealed to be a firearm. Rodriguez’s subsequent conviction prompted an appeal supported by the New York Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Hannah Kon, Rodriguez’s attorney, discussed the significance of the ruling with Gothamist.
“It recognizes that everyone traveling on New York’s roads deserves to have their Fourth Amendment rights protected,” Kon said.
She went on to say that Rodriguez, who served two years in prison, faced significant disruptions to his career as a chef due to the arrest that occurred when he was 20 years old.
The decision, authored by Judge Jenny Rivera and supported by Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and Judges Shirley Troutman and John Egan Jr., elaborated on the need for equal protection under the law for cyclists and motor vehicle drivers during traffic stops.
The judge’s ruling argued that a vehicular stop, whether involving a car or a bicycle, constitutes a display of “government authority,” requiring a higher level of probable cause.
The dissenting judges, in response, argued that the move was too soft on crime. “The majority recoils from the ramifications of its holding, but the result speaks for itself. Now, instead of acting to rid our streets of the deadly menace presented by loaded firearms, the police will be forced to ignore a cyclist with a waistband bulge, for no reason other than that the person happened to be riding a bicycle,” they wrote.
Daniel Lambright, senior staff attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union, praised the ruling as crucial for providing the same protections to cyclists that are afforded to drivers, citing the integration of biking into daily life. He argued that the decision will prevent stops based on factors like race and economic status, while retaining officers’ ability to make legitimate stops.
“All this stops are stops based on conjecture and stereotype,” he told Spectrum News 1.
The decision has faced criticism from law enforcement agencies. Peter Kehoe, executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association, argued that the ruling makes it challenging for officers to be proactive and could result in missed opportunities to prevent crimes.
“Even though their intuition tells them something is wrong, there isn’t enough probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop that person, so they can’t stop them,” he said.
He further suggested that the previous standard, treating cyclists more similarly to pedestrians, provided officers with necessary coverage for intervention.
Kehoe also acknowledged that the ruling may lead to increased caution among officers to avoid civil liability. However, he emphasized that the majority of stops are not influenced by bias and that the association has already provided guidance to individual departments.
