Judge suppresses evidence in drug case, cites ‘troubling aspect of police behavior’

Listen to this article

A Columbia County Court judge has suppressed the evidence in a drug case because of an illegal police search.

Defendant Paul Thomas was arrested after drugs were found in his car during a traffic stop.

Judge Michael C. Howard held a suppression hearing on Jan. 12.

State Police Investigator Michael Moore testified that he was informed by Vermont State Police analyst Paul Jardine that Thomas and his car were involved in narcotics trafficking.

Moore searched license plate reader data and learned that the vehicle had made several trips between upstate New York and Vermont and New York City. Moore believed the travel pattern indicated that the vehicle was involved in criminal behavior.

Moore received a notification from a license plate reader system that the vehicle was heading north on Feb. 15, 2025. Moore followed the vehicle and observed “numerous vehicle and traffic law violations,” according to Howard’s decision.

Moore radioed to Trooper Joseph Edinger, telling him to stop the vehicle.

Edinger did not write any tickets 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,” Howard wrote.

Thomas was removed from his car and told his driving privileges had been suspended. Moore told Thomas that his vehicle was going to be towed, and inventoried due to the license suspension.

Trooper Sean Rohde testified that a drug-sniffing dog was walked around the car and indicated the location of contraband at the driver’s side door. Rohde searched the car and found a scale in the glove compartment, and a black plastic shopping bag on the rear seat of the car containing cocaine.

Howard noted that 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.

The investigation of Thomas began with a tip from Vermont State Police and depended largely on the “fellow officer rule.” Under that rule, even when an arresting officer lacks sufficient personal knowledge to establish probable cause for an arrest, the arrest is lawful if the officer is acting on the direction of, or as a result of communication with a superior or fellow officer, or another police department, and the information was sufficient to establish probable cause to make the arrest.

Th reliability and basis of that information must be adequately demonstrated to the court, Howard wrote.

“There is no record evidence that Jardine’s tip to Moore was anything but a conclusory allegation of narcotics trafficking,” he wrote.

“Absent a recitation of facts conveyed to Moore constituting probable cause to believe Thomas was involved in narcotic’s trafficking, the Court cannot find support for the surveillance or targeting of Thomas,” Howard wrote.

Moore’s description of New York City, and Bennington and Rutland, as known “source cities” was insufficient..

“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,” Howard wrote.

“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,” Howard wrote.

Howard ruled that the evidence must be suppressed.

“By the law enforcement officer’s own admission, the contraband was the goal even before 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,” Howard wrote.

The case demonstrates “a troubling aspect of police behavior,” he wrote.

“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,” Howard wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035