New York Law Review

Tag: Investigatory Detention

  • People v. Williams, 2010 NY Slip Op 08951: Investigatory Detention & Exceeding Hicks

    2010 NY Slip Op 08951

    An investigatory detention, even if supported by reasonable suspicion, exceeds permissible bounds when the detention’s purpose is solely to facilitate a potential arrest if further investigation yields probable cause, rather than serving a special law enforcement need that requires the suspect’s immediate presence.

    Summary

    Williams was a suspect in an early morning carjacking. Based on descriptions, police asked him to sit in a patrol car; he was then locked inside and told he’d be informed of the reason later. He was moved to another locked car, photographed to create a photo array, and told a witness was viewing the array. Approximately 13 minutes elapsed before a witness identified him and he was arrested. The Court of Appeals held that even assuming reasonable suspicion existed, the detention exceeded the scope permitted by People v. Hicks because Williams’ presence was not required for administering the photo array and the detention was primarily for facilitating a potential arrest, rendering the photographs inadmissible.

    Facts

    An early morning carjacking occurred. Five hours later, based on descriptions from the victim and another witness, police approached Williams, whom they had encountered previously. Police asked Williams to sit in a marked patrol car, which he did willingly. Police then locked him in the car, stating that a second officer involved in the carjacking investigation would explain the detention. When the second officer arrived, Williams was moved to another locked police vehicle, photographed with his hands behind his back, and informed that he was a suspect in the carjacking. He was told a witness was viewing a photo array prepared an hour after the carjacking. The victim had previously viewed the array, failing to identify Williams and instead identifying another individual. The prospect of Williams’ release was never mentioned during his 13-minute detention.

    Procedural History

    Following a positive photo array identification, Williams was arrested and transported to the Public Safety Building. He waived his Miranda rights, confessed to the carjacking, provided details of the car’s location, and signed a written confession. The lower courts did not address the People’s argument that the confession was attenuated from the illegal detention. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division order, remitting the case to the Supreme Court to determine attenuation.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an investigatory detention, assuming reasonable suspicion, exceeded the permissible scope outlined in People v. Hicks when the detention was primarily to facilitate a potential arrest pending further investigation.

    Holding

    Yes, because the detention’s primary purpose was to facilitate a potential arrest, and Williams’ presence was not required for the photo array administration, thus exceeding the scope permitted by Hicks.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court acknowledged that Hicks permits limited intrusions extending beyond traditional stop and frisks when justified by special law enforcement interests. However, the Court distinguished the present case from Hicks, where a prompt showup procedure required the simultaneous presence of the defendant and witnesses. Here, the administration of the photo array did not require Williams’ presence. The Court inferred that the detention was simply to make it convenient for the police to arrest Williams if a positive identification occurred, stating, “What the police did here, as a practical matter, was to place defendant under arrest in order to obtain sufficient evidence to arrest him.” Therefore, the photographs obtained during the detention were deemed inadmissible. The court remanded the case to determine whether the confession was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal detention to be admissible, directing the lower court to consider “the relevant attenuation factors.” The court noted that the People did not meet their burden of proving the voluntariness of Williams’ purported consent to be photographed while handcuffed.

  • People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234 (1986): Permissibility of Detaining and Transporting Suspects for Identification

    People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234 (1986)

    When police have reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, they may detain and transport the suspect a short distance to a crime scene for prompt identification by eyewitnesses if the detention is brief, the crime scene is nearby, and there are no less intrusive means available.

    Summary

    Police officers stopped two men suspected of robbery based on a radio report describing the perpetrators and their car. The men gave a suspicious explanation for their whereabouts. The officers transported the men, without handcuffs, to the robbery scene less than a minute away, where they were identified by victims. The New York Court of Appeals held that the brief detention and transportation to the crime scene for immediate identification did not constitute an unlawful arrest because the police action was a reasonable and minimally intrusive means of investigation under the circumstances to quickly confirm or dispel their suspicion. The Court emphasized the short duration of the detention, proximity of the crime scene, and the presence of eyewitnesses.

    Facts

    Around 4:00 a.m., police officers heard a radio report of a robbery involving two black men, about 5’5″ tall, in a green Pontiac with black trim. Minutes later, near the crime scene, they saw two black men in a grey and black Buick sedan appearing to be the described height. The men claimed to be coming from work at American Brass, which the officer knew was far away in the opposite direction. The officers told the men they matched the description and were being taken to the factory for identification, and would be released if not identified.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery. He challenged the stop, detention, transportation, showup identification, and vehicle search. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, limiting the issue to the legality of the stop, detention, and transportation.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, in the absence of probable cause, it is permissible for the police, having made a lawful stop based on reasonable suspicion, to detain the suspect and transport him to the crime scene for possible identification.

    Holding

    Yes, because the detention and transportation were a permissible incident of a lawful stop under the specific circumstances.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court determined the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion based on the radio report description, the suspects’ proximity to the crime scene, and their suspicious explanation. The Court clarified that the police action did not constitute an arrest because the defendant was not handcuffed, there was no show of force, he was allowed to park his car, the detention was brief, and he was informed of its limited purpose. The Court then reasoned that the transportation to the crime scene was a reasonable and minimally intrusive means of investigation to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicion. Key factors supporting the reasonableness of the detention were that a crime had actually been committed; the detention was less than 10 minutes; the crime scene was very close; eyewitnesses were present; and there were no significantly less intrusive means available. The Court emphasized the importance of on-the-scene identifications, stating, “A speedy on-the-scene viewing thus was of value both to law enforcement authorities and to defendant, and was appropriate here.” The Court rejected using a “totality of the circumstances” test, and instead emphasized that the findings of reasonable suspicion and reasonable detention must rest on articulable facts, credible objective evidence, and the rational inferences that flow therefrom.

  • People v. Morales, 42 N.Y.2d 129 (1977): Permissible Scope of Investigatory Detention Based on Reasonable Suspicion

    People v. Morales, 42 N.Y.2d 129 (1977)

    Law enforcement officials may detain an individual upon reasonable suspicion for questioning for a reasonable and brief period of time under carefully controlled conditions, protecting the individual’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

    Summary

    Melvin Morales was convicted of first-degree murder. The Court of Appeals initially upheld the conviction, finding that although the police lacked probable cause for arrest, they had reasonable suspicion to detain Morales for questioning. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a hearing to determine if there was probable cause, voluntary consent, or if the confession was a product of illegal detention. After a hearing, the trial court upheld the confession’s admissibility, finding probable cause and consent. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no probable cause, but reaffirmed the principle allowing brief detention based on reasonable suspicion and also found the defendant consented to the police detention.

    Facts

    Addie Brown was murdered in her apartment building. Police learned that Melvin Morales, a narcotics addict who frequented the building, had been present at the time of the murder and then disappeared. Morales’ mother, a tenant, informed him police wanted to question him, and he agreed to meet them at her workplace. Police, who were staking out the premises, approached Morales, who said he knew they wanted to speak with him. He was taken to the precinct and confessed to the murder within 15 minutes after being advised of his rights.

    Procedural History

    Morales was convicted of first-degree murder, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals sustained the conviction, holding a suspect may be detained on reasonable suspicion for questioning. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the trial court found the confessions admissible. The Appellate Division affirmed. Morales appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the police had probable cause to arrest Morales at the time he was taken into custody.
    2. Whether the principle allowing detention based on reasonable suspicion, as established in the first appeal, was undermined by Brown v. Illinois and People v. Martinez.
    3. Whether Morales voluntarily consented to police detention.

    Holding

    1. No, because the police did not possess reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a prudent man to believe that defendant had committed the crime.
    2. No, because those cases involved illegal arrests, while Morales’ detention was permissible based on reasonable suspicion.
    3. Yes, because the hearing court’s finding of consent was supported by the record and affirmed by the Appellate Division.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court found that the additional evidence presented at the supplemental hearing (a witness seeing Morales near the building before the murder) was cumulative and did not establish probable cause. The court reaffirmed its prior holding that law enforcement officials may detain an individual upon reasonable suspicion for questioning for a brief period under controlled conditions. The court distinguished Brown v. Illinois, where the arrest was illegal because police lacked any basis for suspicion and were on an “expedition for evidence.” In contrast, the police investigation of Morales established a “checkerboard square” of circumstantial evidence pointing at him. Citing People v. De Bour, the court noted that an individual’s right to be free from official interference is not absolute. The court also found an alternative basis for its holding: that Morales consented to the police detention. Although the voluntariness of the consent was disputable, the trial court’s finding was supported by the record and therefore could not be upset.