83 N.Y.2d 928 (1994)
A defendant’s flight in response to a police approach, combined with other specific circumstances indicating possible criminal activity, can create reasonable suspicion justifying police pursuit.
Summary
These consolidated cases, People v. Sierra and People v. Robbins, address when a suspect’s flight from police justifies pursuit. The Court of Appeals held that in Sierra, the police had reasonable suspicion due to the defendant’s flight combined with the known drug activity in the area and suspicious behavior. Thus, the drugs Sierra abandoned were admissible. However, in Robbins, the defendant’s flight after exiting a cab stopped for a traffic violation, without any other indicia of criminal activity, did not justify the pursuit. The drugs Robbins abandoned should have been suppressed.
Facts
People v. Sierra: Police patrolling a high-crime area known for drug activity observed Sierra call out to a man exiting a car with out-of-state plates. When the man saw the police, he turned away. Sierra then refused to approach the police cruiser and fled. During the pursuit, Sierra abandoned a bag containing drugs.
People v. Robbins: Police stopped a livery cab for defective brake lights. Robbins, a passenger, exited the cab, grabbed at his waistband, and ran. During the pursuit, he abandoned a bag containing drugs.
Procedural History
People v. Sierra: The lower courts denied Sierra’s motion to suppress the drug evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding reasonable suspicion justified the pursuit.
People v. Robbins: The lower courts denied Robbins’ motion to suppress the drug evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the pursuit was unlawful, and the evidence should have been suppressed.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a defendant’s flight from police, combined with other circumstances, can establish reasonable suspicion to justify police pursuit.
2. Whether, in People v. Sierra, the police possessed reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant.
3. Whether, in People v. Robbins, the police possessed reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant.
Holding
1. Yes, because a defendant’s flight combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, may give rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit.
2. Yes, because the defendant’s flight, combined with the known drug activity in the area and the suspicious behavior, provided reasonable suspicion.
3. No, because the defendant’s flight after exiting a cab stopped for a traffic violation, without any other indicia of criminal activity, did not justify the pursuit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that flight alone is not enough to justify police pursuit, but flight combined with specific circumstances indicating possible criminal activity can create reasonable suspicion. The Court noted that the determination of reasonable suspicion is a mixed question of law and fact, and the Court of Appeals will only reverse if there is no evidence to support the lower courts’ determination.
In Sierra, the Court found sufficient evidence. The police were patrolling a known “narcotics supermarket.” They saw the defendant call out to a man who exited a car with New Jersey license plates, and the man turned away upon seeing the police. The court held that these facts “furnished an objective, credible reason to approach defendant. Defendant’s refusal to approach the cruiser and his subsequent flight gave rise to reasonable suspicion that he was committing or was about to commit a drug-related crime.”
In Robbins, the Court found the evidence insufficient. The police only knew that Robbins exited a cab stopped for a traffic violation, grabbed his waistband, and fled. The Court stated that these facts “provided them with no information regarding criminal activity.” Therefore, the pursuit was unlawful, and the evidence obtained as a result should have been suppressed.