People v. Holmes, 81 N.Y.2d 1056 (1993)

A police officer’s request for information is permissible when based on an objective, credible reason, and a suspect’s abandonment of contraband in response to such a request is not necessarily the product of an unlawful seizure.

Summary

This case addresses the level of police intrusion permissible during an encounter with a suspect. The Court of Appeals held that police officers acted permissibly when they approached the defendant for information based on observing him in a drug-prone area, clutching his jacket, and briskly walking away from a group of men. The court further found that the defendant’s act of dropping a brick of cocaine was not a direct result of police coercion, therefore the evidence was admissible. The court emphasized the need to balance individual rights against public safety concerns in assessing police conduct.

Facts

Two uniformed police officers in a marked van patrolled a drug-prone area. They saw the defendant clutching the inside of his jacket beneath his armpit, putting both hands in his pockets, and quickly walking away from a group of men. As the officers approached, one officer yelled, “Hey, stop, excuse me” or similar words. When the defendant stopped and turned, a kilogram brick of cocaine fell from his armpit. After arresting the defendant, a search revealed another kilogram of cocaine hidden in his jacket and $280.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, but the motion was denied after a hearing. He then pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. The dissenting justices at the Appellate Division level prompted the appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the police officers’ actions constituted an unlawful seizure of the defendant, requiring suppression of the evidence.
2. Whether the defendant’s relinquishment of the cocaine was a direct result of police coercion, thus rendering the evidence inadmissible.

Holding

1. No, because the police action constituted a permissible request for information based on an objective, credible reason.
2. No, because the Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s relinquishment of the first kilogram brick of cocaine was not based upon submission to police authority is a mixed question of law and fact that is supported by the record.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, finding the police officers’ actions justified under the four-tiered framework established in People v. De Bour and People v. Hollman. The court reasoned that the defendant’s behavior (clutching his jacket in a drug-prone area while walking away from a group of men) provided an objective, credible reason for the officers to approach him and request information. This initial encounter was a minimal intrusion and did not constitute a seizure. The court cited People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 191 and People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223. The court also emphasized that the defendant’s act of dropping the cocaine was not a direct result of police coercion. Since the initial encounter was lawful and the cocaine was abandoned voluntarily, the evidence was admissible. The court declined to further review the Appellate Division’s determination, stating, “In addition, the Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s relinquishment of the first kilogram brick of cocaine was not based upon submission to police authority is a mixed question of law and fact that is supported by the record, and, thus, is not subject to our further review.”