You are here: / / The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry...
,

The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry Ran Did Not Provide the Police with Reasonable Suspicion that Defendant, Who Obeyed the Police Commands, Was Involved in a Crime

The First Department determined that the police did not have sufficient cause to detain four men, including the defendant, on the street. The fact that one of the four men subsequently ran did not provide any additional justification for detaining defendant. The police had enough information about a near-by robbery only to justify a “level one” street inquiry of the four men, not detention.  While detained without sufficient cause, defendant was asked by the police to lift up his shirt, revealing a gun.  Absent “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in a crime, the defendant should not have been detained to await the show-up. Absent an indication defendant posed a danger to the police officers, the defendant should not have been asked to lift his shirt:

…[T]he group of men was in a location to which a group of robbers had been reported to have fled only minutes earlier, giving the officers an articulable reason for inquiring into why the men were in the area … . The question, then, is whether the encounter ever escalated to a point that the police would have been justified in holding the men at the scene while the complainant was transported to it.

…[R]easonable suspicion is a necessary predicate to a detention for a showup identification … . Further, a person’s flight is sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to escalate a level one or level two encounter to a level three detention, so long as other circumstances are attendant, such as a high-crime location and activity suggesting, although not alone creating, reasonable suspicion that the person fleeing the scene may be engaged in criminal conduct … . In all of the cases which discuss flight as the determining factor in creating reasonable suspicion, however, the defendant is the person who fled. Here, of course, defendant did not flee; he obeyed the officers’ direction to stop and to submit to their questioning. People v Thompson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03605 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED UNDER THE PSEUDONYM “JANE DOE” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Teacher’s Termination for a One-Time Mistake “Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness”
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DESPITE LACK OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE AND DEFENDANT’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURY.
Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY, STEMMING FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS.
ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference... Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Prosecution of a Lesser Included Offense Never...