You are here: / / HAVING DEFENDANT WAIT WITH TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHILE A THIRD TOOK HIS ID...
,

HAVING DEFENDANT WAIT WITH TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHILE A THIRD TOOK HIS ID TO AN APARTMENT TO VERIFY DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WAS VISITING A FRIEND IN THE APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division in this street stop case, determined having defendant “stand right there” with two police officers, while a third took defendant’s ID to an apartment to verify defendant’s claim he was visiting a friend there, was not justified under De Bour:

Defendant … was approached by New York Police Department officers after they observed him exiting and reentering a building in a New York City Housing Authority development several times. Upon the officers’ request, defendant explained that he was visiting a friend who lived in the building. The officers asked defendant for his identification, which he provided. An officer then took defendant’s identification to the eleventh floor of the building to verify whether the occupant of the apartment defendant identified knew him … . Another officer instructed defendant to “stand right there” under the watch of two officers. When the first officer returned, having determined that the occupant of the apartment did not know defendant, defendant was arrested for trespassing. At the precinct, officers conducted a search of defendant’s person incident to his arrest and recovered 42 bags of crack cocaine from his groin area. * * *

At its inception, this was “a general, nonthreatening encounter in which an individual is approached for an articulable reason and asked briefly about his or her identity, destination, or reason for being in the area” … . That request implicated only level one of De Bour … and required only an objective credible reason to make basic inquiries of defendant … . On this record, the initial inquiry was justified.

However, the record demonstrates that the encounter thereafter rose beyond a level-one request for information, which the People failed to justify as lawful. Consequently, the People have failed to preserve any argument that the encounter in this case was justified under levels two or three of De Bour. People v Hill, 2019 NY Slip Op 03405, CtApp 5-2-19

 

You might also like
THE $140 MILLION PAID BY BEAR STEARNS TO THE SEC TO SETTLE AN ACTION ALLEGING THE FACILITATION OF LATE TRADING WAS NOT A “PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW” AND THEREFORE WAS A COVERED LOSS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (CT APP).
Sealed Records Relating to Vacated Convictions Were Sufficiently Reliable to Allow Expert Testimony to Be Based Upon Them In a Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Trial (to Determine Whether a Sex Offender Should Be Committed to a Mental Health Facility)/However, a Presentence Report Mentioning Uncharged Offenses Was Not Reliable Enough to Be Used as a Basis for Expert Opinion
FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL.
THE COURTS CAN COMPEL (MANDAMUS) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (IRC) TO DRAW THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS; THE IRC IS ORDERED TO SUBMIT ITS REDISTRICTING PLAN BY FEBRUARY 28, 2024 (CT APP). ​
‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AFTER A YEAR’S ABSENCE DUE TO ON THE JOB INJURY, CIVIL SERVICE LAW 71 DOES NOT APPLY TO ‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES (CT APP).
THE POLICE MAY STOP A VEHICLE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE “COMMUNITY CARETAKING” FUNCTION IF THERE IS CAUSE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE IN THE VEHICLE NEEDS ASSISTANCE; THE QUICK OPENING AND CLOSING OF A PASSENGER DOOR WAS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).
A MISSING JURY-NOTE-RESPONSE TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT WARRANT REVERSAL UNLESS THE DEFENDANT SHOWS ENTITLEMENT TO A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING AND THE TRANSCRIPT CANNOT BE RECONSTRUCTED, NOT THE CASE HERE; WHEN A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE GROUNDS TURNS ON FACTS OUTSIDE THE RECORD, DENIAL WITHOUT A HEARING IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).
Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers by a Former Employee Violates New York Public Policy by Favoring Employers at the Expense of Employees

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED... BY JOINING IN A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT EXTENDED ITS TIME TO...