New York Law Review

Tag: Founded Suspicion

  • People v. Devone, 17 N.Y.3d 106 (2011): Canine Sniff of Vehicle Exterior Requires Founded Suspicion

    People v. Devone, 17 N.Y.3d 106 (2011)

    A canine sniff of the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle constitutes a search under the New York State Constitution, requiring founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior is a search under the state constitution and, if so, what level of suspicion is needed. In two consolidated cases, *People v. Devone* and *People v. Abdur-Rashid*, the Court held that a canine sniff is indeed a search, but requires only “founded suspicion” of criminal activity, a standard lower than reasonable suspicion. The Court reasoned that while individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in their vehicles compared to their homes, that expectation still exists and is protected by the constitution. Because police had founded suspicion in both cases, the evidence obtained was admissible.

    Facts

    People v. Devone: Police stopped a vehicle because the driver, Washington, was using a cell phone. Washington could not produce a license or registration and gave inconsistent information about the vehicle’s owner. A canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior resulted in an alert for narcotics. A subsequent search revealed crack cocaine.

    People v. Abdur-Rashid: An officer stopped Abdur-Rashid’s vehicle for lacking a front license plate. A second officer stopped the same vehicle 45 minutes later for the same reason and noticed debris on the vehicle. Abdur-Rashid and his passenger gave conflicting stories. Abdur-Rashid appeared nervous, and a canine sniff alerted to the presence of drugs. A search of the trunk revealed cocaine.

    Procedural History

    People v. Devone: The County Court initially suppressed the evidence, finding the canine sniff was an illegal search without reasonable suspicion. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that founded suspicion was sufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.

    People v. Abdur-Rashid: The County Court denied the motion to suppress, finding the search lawful. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the officer had founded suspicion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a canine sniff of the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle constitutes a search under Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution.

    2. If so, what level of suspicion is required before law enforcement can conduct that search?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because a canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior constitutes a search under Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution, as it intrudes upon a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, albeit a diminished one as compared to a home.

    2. Founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot is sufficient, because the expectation of privacy in an automobile is less than in a home, and canine sniffs are less intrusive than a full search.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court distinguished its prior holding in *People v. Dunn* (77 N.Y.2d 19 (1990)), which required reasonable suspicion for a canine sniff outside an apartment, reasoning that automobiles have a diminished expectation of privacy compared to residences. The Court acknowledged the reduced, but legitimate, expectation of privacy in an automobile, placing it between a home and luggage handed to a common carrier (as in *People v. Price*, 54 N.Y.2d 557 (1981)).

    The Court adopted a “founded suspicion” standard, a level of suspicion lower than “reasonable suspicion,” balancing the diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle with the utility of canine sniffs for law enforcement. The Court noted, “Given that diminished expectation of privacy, coupled with the fact that canine sniffs are far less intrusive than the search of a residence and provide ‘significant utility to law enforcement authorities’ application of the founded suspicion standard in these cases is appropriate.”

    In both *Devone* and *Abdur-Rashid*, the Court found the officers had founded suspicion. In *Devone*, the driver’s inability to produce a license or registration, inconsistent stories, and vehicle registration discrepancies provided the necessary suspicion. In *Abdur-Rashid*, the condition of the vehicle, unusual travel plans, and the defendant’s nervous behavior justified the canine sniff. The court concluded that the officers in both cases possessed a founded suspicion to conduct the canine sniff.

  • People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521 (2001): Search Consent Requires Founded Suspicion

    People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521 (2001)

    A request to search, and any subsequent consent, is invalid unless supported by a founded suspicion of criminality.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s suppression order, holding that the police lacked a founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify their extended questioning of the defendant. The Court reiterated that consent to search is invalid unless the police have a founded suspicion of criminality prior to requesting the search. Because the lower courts found that the defendant only granted permission to search after being questioned in a manner that suggested he was suspected of a crime without any founded suspicion, the evidence obtained from the search was suppressed.

    Facts

    The police questioned the defendant in circumstances that led him to believe he was suspected of criminal activity. After this questioning, the defendant granted the police permission to search his person and his car. The suppression court found that the police lacked a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time of the questioning and the request for consent.

    Procedural History

    The suppression court ruled that the evidence obtained from the search should be suppressed. The Appellate Division affirmed this ruling. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a consent to search is valid when the request to search is not supported by a founded suspicion of criminality.

    Holding

    No, because a consent to search will not be upheld unless the request to search is supported by a founded suspicion of criminality.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holding in People v. Hollman, stating that a consent to search will not be upheld unless the request to search is supported by a founded suspicion of criminality. The Court emphasized that the lower courts had determined that the defendant only gave permission to search after questioning that reasonably led him to believe he was suspected of criminality, and that this questioning was not based on any founded suspicion. The Court stated, “When, as here, there is support in the record for the lower courts’ undisturbed finding as to the lack of a founded suspicion of criminality, our review is at an end.” The Court effectively deferred to the factual findings of the lower courts regarding the absence of founded suspicion.