People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267 (1980)
A police officer may have reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate a suspect based on a radio transmission coupled with the officer’s observations of the suspect’s behavior and appearance, even if there are some inconsistencies between the radioed description and the suspect’s actual appearance.
Summary
This case addresses the legality of a police stop and search based on a radio transmission describing a suspect. Two officers received a radio transmission describing a Hispanic male carrying a gun wrapped in a white shirt. Upon arriving at the specified location, they observed the defendant, who partially matched the description, leaving the area carrying a white shirt. The officers followed him, and one officer grabbed the shirt, discovering a gun. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the police action justified based on the radio transmission, the defendant’s proximity to the location, his carrying of a white shirt, and his actions. The court emphasized the minimal intrusion involved in the stop.
Facts
Two police officers received a radio transmission about a 5’10” Hispanic male with an afro, wearing a white T-shirt and light blue pants, carrying a gun wrapped in a white shirt at 96th Street and Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan.
Upon arriving at the location, they saw the defendant, who was Hispanic, approximately 5’6″ tall with wavy hair, wearing a light shirt, and carrying a white shirt.
The defendant left the group of people and walked south. The officers followed him.
As the defendant was entering a building and placing the white shirt on the ground, an officer grabbed the shirt, felt a hard object, and discovered a .22 caliber revolver.
The other officer drew his gun and ordered the defendant not to move.
The officers arrested the defendant.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, New York County (Special Term) denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence (banlon shirt, white shirt, and gun).
The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term’s decision.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant based on the radio transmission and their observations, despite inconsistencies between the description and the defendant’s appearance.
Holding
Yes, because the unusual identifying element of carrying a white shirt in the hand, coupled with geographical proximity, provided ground for reasonable suspicion in the circumstances. The intrusion was minimal.
Court’s Reasoning
The court determined that the police action was justified by the totality of the circumstances.
The court found the radio transmission to be authentic and noted that inconsistencies in the description (height, hairstyle, shirt color) did not invalidate the police action.
The court emphasized the defendant’s geographical proximity to the reported location and the fact that he was carrying a white shirt, which was a key element of the description.
The court characterized the police intrusion as minimal, noting that there was no pat-down or frisk and that the officer only touched the defendant to grab the white shirt.
The court distinguished this case from others where the police intrusion was more significant. The Court stated, “The unusual identifying element of carrying a white shirt in the hand, coupled with geographical proximity, provided ground for reasonable suspicion in the circumstances.”
The court implicitly applied the standard of reasonable suspicion, which requires a showing of articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity is afoot. This case is a practical example of the application of this standard, emphasizing that even imperfect information can justify a brief investigatory stop.