People v. Torres, 84 N.Y.2d 951 (1994)

Even when no seizure occurs, police intrusion must be predicated on more than a hunch; officers must possess an articulable basis for requesting information, supported by an objective, credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that police officers had an articulable basis for requesting information from the defendant, even if the initial encounter at a stoplight did not constitute a seizure. Officers observed the defendant and a co-defendant engaging in suspicious behavior near a building suspected of drug activity. This observation provided a sufficient basis for the officers to approach the vehicle and request identification. The co-defendant’s production of a suspicious identification and implausible explanation further justified the officers’ actions leading to the defendant’s arrest after a robbery was reported.

Facts

Officer Meehan, while on stakeout, observed the defendant and Joseph Torres pull up to a building known for drug activity. The men looked up and down the street, entered the building briefly, and drove away. Meehan relayed a description of the two men. Another officer stopped the car at a red light. The officer asked Torres for identification, and Torres provided a wallet with a license and credit cards belonging to another individual, Seng Ong, and gave an unconvincing explanation of how he obtained the wallet. Torres and the defendant agreed to a frisk and to go to the police station. At the station, Ong reported he had been robbed at the building the men visited. Meehan identified the defendant and Torres as the individuals he had seen. A search of the defendant’s car revealed a weapon and cash matching the amount stolen from Ong.

Procedural History

The lower courts found no seizure occurred at the traffic stop, and the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the police action was justified even in the absence of a seizure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling.

Issue(s)

Whether police officers need an articulable basis beyond a mere hunch to request information from individuals in a non-seizure context, such as approaching a vehicle stopped at a traffic light.

Holding

Yes, because even in the absence of a seizure, police intrusions must be predicated on more than a hunch and must be justified by an objective, credible reason.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between interfering with a moving vehicle, which requires reasonable suspicion, and approaching a parked car, which requires an objective, credible reason. The court determined whether a seizure occurred requires determining whether a reasonable person would have believed, under the circumstances, that the officer’s conduct was a significant limitation on their freedom. Here, the court found that the defendant’s progress was halted by a stoplight, not the police and the police did not display weapons or prevent the defendant from leaving. Even if no seizure occurred, the court stated, “privacy interests may still be implicated. An intrusion that does not rise to a seizure must be predicated on more than a hunch, whim, caprice or idle curiosity.” The court found Officer Meehan’s observations of the defendant and Torres – the nature of the area and the conduct of defendant and Torres – met the minimum requirement for an articulable basis to request information. Initial questioning, limited to a request for identification, was consistent with a request for information. The court stated, “That is supplied by an objective, credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality.” Once Torres produced identification clearly not his own, the police possessed probable cause for the defendant’s arrest.