New York Law Review

Tag: Articulable Reason

  • People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 1041 (1995): Justification for Police Inquiry Based on Unusual Circumstances

    People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 1041 (1995)

    Police officers, acting upon an articulable reason, may approach an individual to request information concerning the individual’s identity, destination or reason for being in an area, and if the individual is carrying something that would appear to a trained police officer to be unusual, the officer can ask about that object.

    Summary

    This case addresses the level of justification required for police officers to approach an individual and request information. The New York Court of Appeals held that Sanitation officers were justified in questioning the defendant, who was observed acting suspiciously in an area known for illegal dumping with a large barrel protruding from his trunk. The Court reasoned that the officers had an articulable reason to inquire, especially given the unusual circumstances and the officers’ training and experience. The denial of the motion to suppress the defendant’s incriminating statement and the physical evidence was therefore upheld.

    Facts

    Two Department of Sanitation peace officers observed the defendant in an area known for illegal dumping. The defendant’s car had a 50-gallon cardboard barrel protruding from the trunk. He passed the officers twice, then turned off his headlights and backed the wrong way up a one-way street to a spot where there was a hole in a fence.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was charged with a crime. He moved to suppress his statement (that he had killed his girlfriend, and her body was in the barrel) and the physical evidence. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Sanitation officers had sufficient justification to approach the defendant and inquire about his activities and the contents of the barrel in his car.

    Holding

    Yes, because the defendant’s actions, coupled with the presence of the large barrel and the location’s reputation for illegal dumping, provided the officers with an articulable reason to request information.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holding in People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181 (1992), which reaffirmed the principle that police officers may approach an individual to request information based on an articulable reason. The Court emphasized that “[i]f the individual is carrying something that would appear to a trained police officer to be unusual, the police officer can ask about that object.” Here, the Court found the officers’ inquiry justified because the defendant was observed in an area known for illegal dumping with a large barrel protruding from his car trunk. Further suspicious actions, such as turning off his headlights and backing the wrong way up a one-way street, solidified the justification for the inquiry. The Court concluded that the officers’ request for information was reasonable under the circumstances. The court implicitly acknowledged the specialized knowledge of the sanitation officers in recognizing potential illegal dumping activities. No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted.

  • People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976): Police Authority to Approach and Question Citizens

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

    A police officer may approach a private citizen on the street to request information if there is an articulable reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality, to justify the police action.

    Summary

    This case addresses the extent to which police officers can approach and question private citizens without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The Court of Appeals held that a police officer may approach a citizen for information if they have an articulable reason for doing so, even if it doesn’t amount to suspicion of criminal activity. However, the level of permissible intrusion increases only as the level of suspicion increases. In the companion case, People v. La Pene, the court found an anonymous tip insufficient to justify a stop and frisk.

    Facts

    Around 12:15 a.m., two police officers on foot patrol in Brooklyn noticed Louis De Bour walking towards them on the same side of the street. When De Bour was about 30-40 feet away, he crossed the street. The officers followed suit and asked De Bour what he was doing in the neighborhood. De Bour responded that he had parked his car and was going to a friend’s house. When the officer asked for identification, De Bour said he had none. The officer then noticed a bulge in De Bour’s jacket, asked him to unzip it, and discovered a revolver. De Bour was arrested.

    Procedural History

    De Bour moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the police encounter was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion, finding the officer’s testimony credible. De Bour pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a weapon and received a conditional discharge. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a police officer, in the absence of any concrete indication of criminality, may approach a private citizen on the street for the purpose of requesting information, and whether the subsequent search was justified.

    Holding

    Yes, because a police officer may approach a citizen if they have an articulable reason, and the officer’s observation of the bulge, coupled with the time and location, justified the request to unzip the jacket.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that not every police encounter constitutes a seizure. A seizure occurs when there is a significant interruption with an individual’s liberty of movement. However, the court stated that police officers have a duty to maintain order and assist the public. Therefore, they can approach individuals to request information, even without reasonable suspicion, but the intrusion must be minimal and justified by an articulable reason, not whim or caprice. The court established a four-tiered framework for evaluating police-citizen encounters:

    1. A police officer may approach for information when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality.
    2. The common-law right to inquire is activated by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and permits a greater intrusion.
    3. Where a police officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, the CPL authorizes a forcible stop and detention of that person.
    4. A police officer may arrest and take into custody a person when he has probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime, or offense in his presence (CPL 140.10).

    In De Bour’s case, the court found the officers legitimately approached De Bour to inquire as to his identity because the encounter was brief, devoid of harassment, and occurred after midnight in an area known for drug activity, and De Bour conspicuously crossed the street to avoid them. The court further held that the officer was justified in asking De Bour to unzip his jacket after noticing the bulge, which reasonably suggested a weapon. The court distinguished People v. Sanchez, noting that in that case, the officer did not testify that the object felt like a weapon.