Because the stop of the defendant was unlawful, his \u201cnew crime\u201d of alleged disorderly conduct during the unlawful patdown was not an intervening circumstance. United States v. Olavarria, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42867 (S.D. N.Y. April 20, 2011):<\/p>\n
Here, the Government \u2014 which bears the burden of demonstrating that Olavarria committed a \u201cnew crime\u201d that attenuated the effects of the illegal traffic stop, see Brown, 422 U.S. at 604 \u2014 has not offered evidence that the alleged five-minute altercation between the defendant and the police officers became \u201c\u2018a potential or immediate public problem.\u2019\u201d Weaver, 16 N.Y.3d at 127-28 (quoting Munafo, 50 N.Y.2d at 331). While the encounter took place on a public street in the Bronx at about 6:00 p.m., the fact that this incident occurred in a public place is, standing alone, insufficient to bring it within the purview of the disorderly conduct statute. …<\/p>\n
The Government has offered no evidence that any member of the public observed the incident, that anyone was in the vicinity of the traffic stop, or that the dispute extended beyond Olavarria and the officers. Given that the entire incident took no more than five minutes, it is unlikely that Olavarria\u2019s conduct attracted notice or presented any risk of obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic. While one officer testified that Olavarria broke away from the officers and \u201cheaded towards the middle of the street\u201d before falling to the ground with several officers, the two other police witnesses \u2014 including Detective Dunsing, Olavarria’s principal antagonist \u2014 had no such recollection. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading