No Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity—Frisk of Defendant Improper
Applying a “DeBour” analysis, the Second Department determined the police did not have the right to frisk the defendant. The police approached the defendant because he was holding two or three cigarettes and the police thought he may be selling loose cigarettes. The police noticed evidence of gang membership and defendant acknowledged being a member. The police asked defendant if he had a weapon and defendant did not answer. At that point, based on seeing a bulge in defendant’s pocket, the defendant was frisked and searched. The Court wrote:
The level one request for information may include ” basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination'” …. However, ” [o]nce the officer asks more pointed questions that would lead the person approached reasonably to believe that he or she is suspected of some wrongdoing . . . the officer is no longer merely seeking information'” … and the encounter has become a level-two common-law inquiry, which must be supported by ” “a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot”‘” …”[A] police officer who asks a private citizen if he or she is in possession of a weapon must have founded suspicion that criminality is afoot” ….
“[T]o elevate the right of inquiry to the right to forcibly stop and detain, the police must obtain additional information or make additional observations of suspicious conduct sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior” …. ” [I]nnocuous behavior alone will not generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand'” …. Thus, “in order to justify a frisk of a suspect’s outer clothing, a police officer must have “knowledge of some fact or circumstance that supports a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed or poses a threat to safety”‘”…. Even assuming that the police were justified in conducting a level-two common-law inquiry, they lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to support a level-three encounter consisting of a pat-down or “stop-and-frisk” search… . People v Kennebrew, 2013 NY Slip Op 03854, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13
STREET STOPS