People v. Cabey, 57 N.Y.2d 104 (1982)

Ordering occupants to remain in a parked car constitutes a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the mere fact that a vehicle is a dirty rental car does not provide such reasonable suspicion.

Summary

Police officers, while on patrol, observed a dirty rental car occupied by three black men. They followed the car until it parked, then approached the vehicle. The officers ordered the occupants to remain in the car while they investigated. A search of the vehicle revealed illegal weapons. The New York Court of Appeals held that ordering the occupants to remain in the car constituted an unlawful seizure because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that the occupants were involved in criminal activity. The court found that the dirty condition of the rental car, by itself, was insufficient to justify the seizure.

Facts

Two plainclothes police officers in an unmarked car observed a dirty 1978 Chrysler Cordoba rental car with three black male occupants. The officers followed the car for a few blocks until it parked near a bar. The officers parked behind the rental car and approached. One officer ordered one of the occupants, who was exiting the car, to get back inside, and also told another occupant to sit up. The officers then asked the driver for his license and registration.

Procedural History

The defendants were charged with unlawful possession of weapons. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the prosecutor appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the use of a dirty rental car in New York City establishes reasonable suspicion, as a matter of law, that the occupants are engaged in criminal activity.
2. Whether police officers’ actions in approaching a parked car, asking the driver for his license and registration, and ordering the three occupants to remain in the vehicle constituted such a minor intrusion that the police may do so absent reasonable suspicion.

Holding

1. No, because the use of a dirty rental car alone does not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
2. No, because ordering the occupants to remain in the car constitutes a seizure, which requires reasonable suspicion.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the case concerned the seizure of a person, not a vehicle stop. Approaching a citizen for information requires only an articulable basis, but exercising restraint over an individual requires reasonable suspicion. “[B]efore the police can forcibly or constructively stop an individual as was done here by the order to remain in the car there must be some articulable facts, which initially or during the course of the encounter, establish reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal acts or poses some danger to the officers.”

The court distinguished Pennsylvania v. Mimms, noting that in Mimms, the driver had already been lawfully stopped for a traffic offense. The Cabey court emphasized that the incremental intrusion of ordering a driver out of a vehicle lawfully stopped for a traffic violation was minimal. However, in Cabey, there was no lawful stop preceding the order to remain in the car.

The court deferred to the lower courts’ finding that the dirty rental car did not establish reasonable suspicion. The court noted that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the police action was justified. “Contrary to the dissenter’s view it is not common knowledge that ordinarily rental cars are relatively clean and well maintained… Thus if the defendants’ use of a dirty rental car in the City of New York could give rise to reasonable suspicion, that certainly was not the only inference that could be drawn.” Because the finding involved a mixed question of law and fact and was supported by evidence, the Court of Appeals could not overturn it.