People v. Stokes, 32 N.Y.2d 204 (1973)
An arrest for loitering requires specific evidence that the suspect’s behavior suggests they are engaged in or about to engage in criminal activity, and a refusal to identify oneself, without more, is insufficient to justify such an arrest.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction based on evidence obtained during a search incident to an arrest for loitering. The Court held that the arrest was unlawful because there was no probable cause to believe the defendant was engaged in criminal activity beyond simply being in a building lobby and refusing to identify himself. The Court emphasized that a refusal to answer police questions, without other suspicious circumstances, cannot justify an arrest for loitering. Therefore, the search was illegal, and the evidence seized should have been suppressed.
Facts
Albert Stokes and a friend entered the unlocked lobby of an apartment building. After a brief conversation, two housing authority policemen, who had been observing them, approached Stokes and asked if he lived there. Stokes said he did not. When asked to identify himself and explain his presence, Stokes refused. The officers arrested him for loitering, searched him, and discovered hypodermic instruments and heroin.
Procedural History
Stokes was charged with possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a hypodermic instrument, and loitering. After a hearing, his motion to suppress the evidence was denied, and he was convicted of loitering. Subsequently, he pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a hypodermic instrument. The Appellate Term reversed the loitering conviction but affirmed the judgment, finding probable cause for the loitering arrest. Stokes appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether there was probable cause to arrest Stokes for loitering under Penal Law § 240.35(6).
- Whether the evidence seized during the search incident to the arrest should have been suppressed.
Holding
- No, because the circumstances did not justify a suspicion that Stokes was engaged or about to engage in crime.
- Yes, because the arrest was unlawful, making the subsequent search and seizure also unlawful.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that an arrest for loitering under Penal Law § 240.35(6) requires evidence that the suspect is loitering “in or about a place without apparent reason,” that the circumstances justify suspicion that they may be engaged or about to engage in crime, and that they refuse to identify themselves or provide a credible explanation when questioned by a peace officer. The Court found that the police lacked any evidence suggesting Stokes was engaged in criminal activity. The complaint lacked any allegation that Stokes was suspected of being involved in a crime. The Court stated, “Absolutely lacking is evidence that the policeman had any information whatever…that would have rendered this otherwise innocent conduct suspicious within the sense of the statute.”
The Court distinguished this case from People v. Gresham, where the defendant’s suspicious behavior (fleeing with an envelope in a deserted train station) provided probable cause. The Court emphasized that Stokes’s refusal to identify himself was insufficient to justify the arrest. Citing People v. Schanbarger, the Court noted that while it may have been preferable for Stokes to answer the officer’s questions, his failure to do so did not constitute a criminal act or a violation of the loitering statute. Since the arrest was unlawful, the search was also unlawful, and the evidence should have been suppressed. The Court found it unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the loitering statute.