New York Law Review

Tag: People v. McIntosh

  • 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.

  • People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521 (2001): Limits on Police Requests for Information on Buses

    96 N.Y.2d 521 (2001)

    A police request for information from all passengers on a bus requires an objective, credible reason particularized to those passengers, not just a general belief that the bus’s origin is a drug source city.

    Summary

    This case concerns the legality of a drug interdiction effort by police on a commercial bus. An investigator boarded a bus arriving from New York City and asked all passengers to produce tickets and identification. Based on the fact that the bus came from New York City, deemed a narcotics source, the Appellate Division found the request acceptable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the request was unlawful. The Court reasoned that asking all passengers for documentation required a specific, articulable reason beyond the bus’s origin, and that the evidence obtained from the defendant following this request should have been suppressed.

    Facts

    An investigator boarded a bus arriving from New York City at 3:30 AM. He announced a drug interdiction effort and asked all fifteen passengers to produce bus tickets and identification. The investigator observed the defendant and a companion pushing a black object between them. He asked for their identification and tickets. The investigator obtained consent to search defendant’s bag and found a digital scale. The investigator then found cocaine in a jacket belonging to the defendant.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. The defendant pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a police request for all passengers on a bus to produce tickets and identification is justified solely by the fact that the bus originated from a city known as a source of narcotics.

    Holding

    No, because the request was not supported by an objective, credible reason particularized to the passengers, but instead was based on a generalized suspicion due to the bus’s origin.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court applied the four-tiered framework from People v. De Bour to assess the police encounter. The initial request for all passengers to produce documentation triggered De Bour scrutiny. The Court stated, “If a police officer seeks simply to request information from an individual, that request must be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality.” The Court emphasized that while police have broad authority to ask questions, they cannot do so on mere whim. The Court distinguished this case from others where encounters were justified by specific conduct or information linking individuals to criminal activity. “In determining the legality of an encounter under De Bour and Hollman, it has been crucial whether a nexus to conduct existed, that is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information.” The Court found that the bus’s origin was insufficient justification. “Here, the record does not reflect any reason for the request of all passengers to produce their tickets and identification, other than the fact the bus had departed from a place described by the investigator as ‘known as a source city for narcotics.’” The Court also stated that the subsequent observation of the defendant pushing a black object did not legitimize the earlier request, as an encounter cannot be validated retroactively. The court concluded that the procedure employed by the police violated the defendant’s rights, making the subsequent search unlawful. Judge Smith concurred, emphasizing that the police action constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and the New York State Constitution, as a reasonable person would not have felt free to decline the officers’ requests.