People v. Mosley, 68 N.Y.2d 881 (1986)
r
r
Police must possess specific, articulable facts providing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a stop and frisk; mere equivocal conduct is insufficient.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals held that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant Mosley and his companions based on their behavior of walking behind an elderly woman. The court found the conduct “equivocal, at best” and insufficient to justify the stop. Because the initial stop was unlawful, the subsequent search of Mosley at the police station, which revealed a weapon, was deemed illegal, and the motion to suppress the weapon should have been granted. The court also held that Mosley had standing to contest the frisk of his companion because the prosecution argued constructive possession based on the companion’s weapon.
r
r
Facts
r
Plain-clothed police officers observed Mosley and two companions walking about 25 yards behind an elderly woman around three sides of a block. The woman crossed the street to enter an apartment building. Mosley and his companions started to cross the street after her but turned back and continued walking. The police officers then stopped Mosley and his companions on the sidewalk. A frisk revealed a starter pistol on one companion (Mackie) but nothing on Mosley. All three were arrested for possession of Mackie’s weapon. A subsequent search of Mosley at the police station revealed a .22 caliber pistol in his pocket, which was not found during the initial frisk.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Mosley was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. He moved to suppress the .22 caliber pistol found during the search at the police station. The trial court denied the motion. Mosley pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. Mosley appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the police had reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, to stop and frisk Mosley and his companions.r
2. Whether Mosley had standing to contest the frisk of his companion, Mackie.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because the conduct observed by the police was equivocal and did not constitute specific, articulable facts necessary to justify the stop and frisk.r
2. Yes, because the People relied on the discovery of the starter pistol on Mackie as the basis for Mosley’s arrest, arguing that Mosley constructively possessed the weapon concealed on Mackie’s person.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the police officers’ observations of Mosley and his companions walking behind an elderly woman were,