People v. Barksdale, No. 123 (N.Y. Oct. 22, 2015)
A police officer may request information from an individual if the officer has an objective credible reason, based on specific facts, that is not necessarily indicative of criminality, to believe the person is engaged in unlawful activity.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals considered whether police had an objective credible reason to approach and question a man found in the lobby of an apartment building enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP). The Court held that the officers’ observation of the defendant in the lobby of the TAP building provided an objective credible reason to request information, and that the initial inquiry was permissible. This finding was based on the private nature of the lobby, restricted access, and the building’s enrollment in TAP. The Court found that the police officer’s actions were justified, which included finding a razor blade upon the defendant’s arrest, and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision denying the suppression of evidence.
Facts
A police officer, assigned to a foot patrol in Manhattan, looked into buildings enrolled in the TAP to locate trespassers. The officer saw a sign indicating a particular building’s enrollment in the TAP. Upon entering the building, the officer found the defendant in the lobby. The officer asked the defendant what he was doing there. The defendant stated he was visiting a friend, but could not identify the friend and did not live in the building. The officer arrested the defendant, and a search incident to the arrest revealed a razor blade. The defendant moved to suppress the razor blade, arguing an unlawful stop and arrest.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the motion to suppress the razor blade. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the police officer had an objective credible reason to approach and request information from the defendant.
Holding
Yes, because the officer observed the defendant in the lobby of a building enrolled in the TAP, the police had an objective credible reason to ask defendant what he was doing in the building.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court applied the first level of the De Bour framework, which permits a police officer to request information from an individual if the request is supported by an “objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality.” The Court noted the encounter occurred in a private space (the building lobby) with restricted access and that the building had sought police assistance to combat trespassing through enrollment in the TAP. These factors, coupled with the defendant’s presence in the building, supported the intrusion. The Court distinguished this case from People v. McIntosh, where mere presence in a high-crime area was insufficient to justify a De Bour inquiry, because here, the inquiry was based on the nature of the location and the TAP enrollment, not merely geography.
The dissenting judge argued that the officers had no reason to approach the defendant and that the building’s TAP enrollment was essentially a proxy for the building’s reputation for criminal activity, which is insufficient under McIntosh. The dissent argued that the officer’s actions constituted an unwarranted intrusion on privacy. The dissent also highlighted concerns about the potential for escalation during such encounters and the lack of clear guidance for individuals’ rights in responding to such inquiries.
Practical Implications
This case provides guidance on the application of the De Bour framework in the context of TAP buildings. It clarifies that the combination of a private, restricted-access location and a building’s participation in TAP provides an objective credible reason for a level one inquiry. This allows police to approach individuals and ask questions, which may have implications for proactive policing in buildings enrolled in similar programs. The case underscores the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the justification for a police encounter. The ruling suggests that the location’s characteristics and the program’s purpose can justify initial inquiries, even in the absence of observed suspicious behavior. However, the dissenting opinion highlights ongoing concerns about privacy rights and the potential for overbroad police actions, particularly in the absence of clearly defined rules for such encounters.