People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976)

Police conduct during street encounters must be justified by the circumstances, ranging from a simple request for information supported by an objective credible reason to an arrest supported by probable cause.

Summary

This case outlines a four-tiered framework for evaluating the propriety of police encounters on the street. The court held that police intrusions must be justified at their inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that prompted the encounter. The degree of permissible intrusion increases as the level of suspicion rises, from a mere request for information to a forcible stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or danger. The court differentiated the instant case from People v. Sanchez, emphasizing the defendant’s furtive conduct and the officers’ safety concerns that validated the stop and frisk.

Facts

The defendant was observed the previous evening with the victim of a violent assault and robbery. The following morning, the defendant was overheard stating that the victim kept her money in her brassiere. Later that day, police officers stopped the defendant for questioning regarding the assault. The defendant exhibited furtive behavior, refused to answer questions, and began to walk away from the officers. Fearing for their own safety, the officers conducted a pat-down search (a “stop and frisk”) of the defendant.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop and frisk. The suppression motion was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Issue(s)

Whether the police officers’ stop and frisk of the defendant was justified under the circumstances.

Holding

Yes, because given the violent nature of the crime, the defendant’s conduct, and the officers’ fear for their own personal safety, the stop and frisk was proper.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that police intrusions must be predicated on reasonable suspicion, tailored to the specific circumstances of the encounter. The Court articulated a four-tiered framework:

1. A police officer may approach a citizen to request information when there is an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality.
2. A police officer may exercise the common-law right to inquire, which involves a greater intrusion than a simple request for information, when the officer has a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
3. A police officer may forcibly stop and detain a person when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
4. A police officer may arrest a person when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.

The Court found that the defendant’s presence with the victim the night before, his overheard statement about the victim’s money, his furtive conduct when questioned, and the officers’ fear for their safety justified the stop and frisk. The court distinguished the case from People v. Sanchez, noting that in Sanchez, the defendant did not attempt to evade police, the officer did not articulate any feeling of danger, the defendant had not engaged in furtive conduct, and the police had no information linking the defendant to a weapon.

The court reasoned that the level of intrusion was commensurate with the reasonable suspicion generated by the defendant’s actions. The Court highlights the importance of balancing individual rights against the need for law enforcement to prevent crime and ensure public safety. The court implicitly acknowledged the practical realities faced by officers on the street, where quick decisions must be made based on limited information.