The New York state Court of Appeals says when it comes to traffic stops, bicyclists should be treated the same as motor vehicle drivers.

Last week, the Court of Appeals in a tight 4-3 decision sided with a New York City man who pleaded guilty to a weapons charge and after officers observed his bike moving erratically, and what appeared to be a large item in the side of his pants. The Court of Appeals ruled police did not have probable cause for a search, and that traffic stops associated with bicycles should require the same standard as automobile stops.

Daniel Lambright, senior staff attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union, who submitted an amicus brief in favor of the defendant, said bikers have to follow the rules of the road just like cars, so they should have the same protections when being pulled over.

“Biking is often thought of as a leisurely activity but it’s becoming more integrated into the daily lives of individuals,” he said. “It’s important to protect them and make sure they aren’t being stopped on a whim by an officer with a mere suspicion.”

The decision states that a vehicular stop involves a show of "government authority" and therefore requires a higher level of probable cause than interactions on foot. The ruling states that being stopped by a police officer on a bike is a similar display of government authority, and requires the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

“If an individual is driving in a car, they need what is called reasonable suspicion because stopping a car constitutes a seizure, so that requires a higher belief,” he said.

Law enforcement agencies have criticized the move, with Peter Kehoe, executive director of the New York Sheriff’s Association, arguing that the decision makes it difficult for officers to be proactive rather than reactive.

“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 told Spectrum News 1 that the previous standard of treating cyclists more similarly to pedestrians gave officers necessary coverage to intervene when they sensed something wasn’t right.

“What will happen is they will err on the side of caution to avoid civil liability,” he said. “So some crimes that should have been detected and could have been prevented are going to happen.”

Lambright emphasizes that the objective here is largely to prevent stops based on racial and economic factors. He notes that if officers are legitimately concerned that a crime is taking place, they still have tools at their disposal, like waiting for a traffic violation to occur in order to make a constitutional stop.

“All this stops are stops based on conjecture and stereotype,” he said.

Kehoe stressed that while he doesn’t feel that bias plays any role in the vast majority of these stops, and condemns any where it does, he accepts the ruling and wasn’t necessarily surprised that the court went in this direction. He says the association has already sent guidance out to individual departments, and that will be passed on to deputies through the existing periodic training systems those organizations have in place.