People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976)
Police encounters with citizens are governed by a four-tiered framework, where the degree of permissible intrusion is directly related to the degree of articulable suspicion that justifies the encounter.
Summary
This case outlines the permissible scope of police interaction with private citizens. The New York Court of Appeals established a four-tiered framework: (1) a mere request for information requires only an objective credible reason; (2) a common-law right to inquire requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot; (3) a forcible stop and detention requires a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime; and (4) an arrest requires probable cause. The court held that the officer’s initial approach to De Bour to request information was justified, but the subsequent actions exceeded the permissible scope of intrusion given the level of suspicion.
Facts
At 12:15 a.m., two police officers were patrolling a street in Brooklyn known for its high incidence of crime. They observed De Bour walking towards them. As they passed, one of the officers crossed the street and asked De Bour if he could speak with him. De Bour agreed. The officer asked De Bour what he was doing in the neighborhood. De Bour stated that he had just parked his car and was walking to a friend’s house. The officer asked De Bour for identification. As De Bour was answering, the officer noticed a bulge in De Bour’s jacket. The officer, fearing that De Bour was armed, reached into the jacket and discovered a loaded handgun. De Bour was arrested and charged with possession of a weapon.
Procedural History
De Bour was convicted of possession of a weapon in criminal court. He appealed, arguing that the gun should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful search. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the police officer’s intrusion upon De Bour was justified at each stage of the encounter, considering the officer’s initial request for information, the subsequent request for identification, and the final search of De Bour’s jacket.
Holding
No, because the officer’s escalating actions were not justified by a sufficient level of suspicion at each stage of the encounter. The initial request for information was permissible, but the subsequent intrusion of requesting identification and searching his jacket were not, because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that De Bour was engaged in criminal activity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals articulated a four-tiered method for evaluating the propriety of police encounters. The court said, “The greater the intrusion, the greater must be the reason for it.” The first tier involves a simple request for information, which requires only some objective credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality. The second tier, the common-law right to inquire, requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. The third tier, a forcible stop and detention, requires a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The fourth tier, an arrest, requires probable cause.
The court found that the initial request for information was justified, as the officer had an objective credible reason to approach De Bour given the high crime rate in the area. However, the subsequent request for identification and the search of De Bour’s jacket were not justified, as the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that De Bour was engaged in criminal activity. The court noted that the bulge in De Bour’s jacket, without more, did not provide reasonable suspicion to justify the search. The court emphasized that to justify such an intrusion, the officer must have a reasonable belief that his safety or that of others is threatened. The court stated, “Before the police officer places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate reasonable grounds for doing so.”
The court emphasized the importance of balancing the government’s interest in law enforcement with the individual’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court reversed the conviction and suppressed the weapon.