People v. Gomcin, 94 N.Y.2d 900 (2000)
A bare inquiry about someone’s desire to use drugs, without additional context suggesting possession or intent to sell, does not automatically establish probable cause for an arrest.
Summary
During a police “buy operation,” an undercover officer reported that a man asked her “if she wanted to take a hit of cocaine.” Based solely on this statement, police stopped and searched every patron leaving the club hours later, including Gomcin, finding cocaine and a gun. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of the evidence, finding that the statement, absent further context, was insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest. The Court deferred to the lower courts’ finding that the statement could reasonably be interpreted as a mere inquiry rather than an offer to sell drugs.
Facts
During an undercover “buy operation” at a social club on January 31, 1997, an undercover officer radioed a detective, reporting that a “tall white male with a pony tail” (dubbed “JD Tan”) asked her “if she wanted to take a hit of cocaine.” Approximately six hours later, the officer left the club. The detective and backup officers arrived, directing all patrons to leave and stopping and searching each one. The police searched defendant Gomcin, recovering a packet of cocaine from his jacket pocket and a .38-caliber automatic gun from his boot.
Procedural History
Gomcin was indicted on charges of criminal possession of a weapon and a controlled substance. At the suppression hearing, the trial court credited the detective’s testimony regarding the undercover officer’s radio message but concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest. The Supreme Court granted Gomcin’s motion to suppress the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that, without knowing the context of the conversation, it was reasonable to infer the statement was merely an inquiry. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the undercover officer’s report that Gomcin asked her “if she wanted to take a hit of cocaine” provided sufficient probable cause for the police to arrest and search Gomcin.
Holding
No, because the statement, absent any context suggesting possession or intent to sell drugs, was reasonably interpreted as a mere inquiry and therefore did not establish probable cause.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that whether probable cause existed was a mixed question of law and fact, and it could not disturb the lower court’s determination unless it lacked a basis in the record. The Court noted that the lower courts found the statement, without additional context, insufficient to infer Gomcin possessed cocaine. Although the police might have reasonably viewed the statement as an offer to sell drugs, the lower courts’ interpretation as a mere inquiry was also reasonable and supported by the record. Therefore, the Court of Appeals deferred to the lower courts’ finding. The court reasoned that the defendant’s “bare inquiry, in the absence of any context, did not support the inference that he possessed cocaine.” While acknowledging an alternative interpretation, the court deferred to the lower court’s supported finding that the statement was not indicative of criminal activity. The case turns on the ambiguity of the statement and the lack of corroborating evidence.