What is the test for establishing there was probable cause for a stop?

The court disagrees. First of all, this was not an argument advanced by the People following the close of the hearing (the prosecutor urged the trial court to find that there was "probable cause" for a "stop") and the court declines to exercise its discretion to review it (see People v. Turriago , 90 NY2d 77, 84 [1997] ).

Secondly, even if the court were to review the issue, and assuming that the officer did not effectuate a stop or seizure, no objective reason has been put forward to justify the officer's approach to the vehicle (see e.g. People v. Harrison , 57 NY2d 470, 475 [1982] : "All that is required is an articulable basis, which in this case was supplied by the extremely dirty condition of the defendants' rental car"). Pulling over to the side of the road upon seeing headlights close behind in one's rearview mirror does not qualify as an "articulable basis" to justify an officer's approach. Equally and objectively plausible is that the defendant was simply trying to get out of the way of a closely-following vehicle. As noted above, the observation that the officer made of the defendant driving down the middle of the road in violation of some provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was not, on the basis of the evidence elicited at trial, objectively reasonable. Defendant operated his vehicle and pulled over to the side of the road in a manner that raised no issue whatsoever.