People v. May, 81 N.Y.2d 725 (1992)
A vehicle stop constitutes a seizure and is lawful only if supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; merely being parked on a deserted street known for criminal activity and slowly driving away from approaching police officers does not provide reasonable suspicion.
Summary
Defendant was sitting in a parked car with a companion on a deserted street known for criminal activity when police officers approached in a marked car with turret lights and a spotlight. The defendant started the car and slowly drove away. The officers ordered the defendant to pull over using a loudspeaker. After the stop, the officers discovered the car was stolen and found crack cocaine on the defendant. The New York Court of Appeals held that the initial stop was unlawful because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop was suppressed.
Facts
Two police officers, patrolling in a marked car, observed the defendant and a female companion seated in a parked Oldsmobile on a deserted street known for criminal activity at approximately 2:30 a.m. The officers approached the parked car, activating the patrol car’s red turret lights and spotlight. As the officers approached, the defendant started the engine of the Oldsmobile and slowly pulled away. One of the officers, using the police car’s loudspeaker, ordered the car to pull over. The defendant complied.
Procedural History
The defendant moved to suppress the crack cocaine and police photographs of the stolen car, arguing they were the fruits of an illegal stop and seizure. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, and dismissed the indictment.
Issue(s)
Whether police officers, who observe a vehicle parked on a deserted street known for criminal activity and then slowly pulling away as they approach with activated turret lights and spotlight, have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying a vehicle stop.
Holding
No, because the police officers lacked reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed. The police officers only knew that the defendant and another person were sitting in a car parked on a desolate street, which provided them with no information regarding criminal activity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that the defendant was effectively “seized” when the police, using red turret lights, a spotlight, and a loudspeaker, ordered him to pull the car over. Because a seizure occurred, the stop was only proper if the officers had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, as required by People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559 (1978), and People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976). The Court reasoned that the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Court noted that the defendant’s action in slowly moving the car away as the police approached could not create a reasonable suspicion because the defendant had a right “to be let alone” and refuse to respond to police inquiry, citing People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583 (1980). The Court stated that the police could have followed the car to keep it under observation while they checked on its plates, but they had no legal basis to stop the car when they did. The court emphasized that police cannot forcibly detain civilians for questioning without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court stated, “once defendant indicated, by pulling away from the curb, that he did not wish to speak with the officers, they should not have forced him to stop without legal grounds to do so.” The evidence was suppressed based on Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), because it was obtained as a result of the illegal stop.