Caseflicks

New York Court of Appeals • 1976

People v. De Bour

40 N.Y.2d 210 | 352 N.E.2d 562 | 386 N.Y.S.2d 375 | 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2873

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, De Bour created New York’s graduated framework for police street encounters: greater intrusions require stronger, objectively grounded suspicion, while even a minimal police inquiry must be reasonable rather than arbitrary.

Background

Shortly after midnight, two uniformed Brooklyn officers saw Louis De Bour, who was walking alone on a lightly traveled street in an area known for narcotics activity, cross the street when he came within 30 to 40 feet of them. The officers crossed as well and asked what he was doing in the neighborhood. De Bour answered nervously that he had parked his car and was going to a friend’s house. When asked for identification, he said he had none. An officer then noticed a slight bulge at De Bour’s waistband, asked him to unzip his jacket, saw a revolver protruding from his waistband, and arrested him.

The suppression court credited the officer’s account and denied suppression. De Bour pleaded guilty to attempted felonious possession of a weapon, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.

The Court decided De Bour together with People v. La Pene. In La Pene, four officers entered a bar after an anonymous caller reported that a Black man wearing a red shirt had a gun there. Without questioning anyone or verifying the tip, an officer ordered Milton La Pene, who matched that general description but was behaving innocently, to freeze and raise his hands. A frisk uncovered a handgun. The suppression court denied suppression, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether De Bour preserved his challenge to the legality of the officers’ initial approach and questioning.

Holding

Yes. De Bour’s suppression motion and cross-examination adequately preserved the issue.

Reasoning

A suppression challenge asserting that the police initially restrained De Bour without consent, a warrant, court order, or other lawful authority put the legality of the encounter at issue. Unlike a failure to object to a jury charge, this claim was raised at a time when the People had an opportunity to present evidence supporting the officers’ conduct.

Defense counsel also cross-examined Officer Steck about why he and his partner chose to approach De Bour. Emphasizing one theory at the hearing and developing another aspect of the same suppression challenge on appeal did not forfeit review.

Issue #2

Whether officers may approach a citizen and request information when they lack reasonable suspicion that the citizen is involved in crime.

Holding

Yes, provided the approach is supported by an objective, articulable reason and is reasonable in manner, scope, and surrounding circumstances.

Reasoning

The Court rejected both extremes: police may not forcibly stop a person merely to develop suspicion, but every police-citizen encounter is not automatically a Fourth Amendment seizure. A seizure requires a significant interruption of the person’s liberty of movement; the brief, nonthreatening questioning by uniformed officers here was not such a seizure.

Even a nonseizure inquiry is not beyond constitutional scrutiny. Police may not intrude out of whim, caprice, idle curiosity, harassment, or intimidation. In criminal-law enforcement, the reasonableness of an approach depends on its intensity, the seriousness of the crime being investigated or prevented, and the circumstances of the encounter.

The initial inquiry was reasonable. It was brief, limited, and nonhumiliating; it occurred after midnight on an otherwise empty street in an area with substantial narcotics activity; and De Bour conspicuously crossed the street rather than pass the uniformed officers. Taken together, these facts gave the officers an objective, credible reason to ask limited questions, even though they did not amount to reasonable suspicion sufficient for a forcible stop.

Issue #3

Whether the officers lawfully asked De Bour to open his jacket after observing a slight bulge at his waistband.

Holding

Yes. The request was a minimal and reasonable protective intrusion under the circumstances.

Reasoning

The officer testified that he believed the waistband bulge was a gun. A bulge at the waistband is more suggestive of a weapon than an undefined bulge in a pocket, which can readily be explained by innocent objects.

The late-night setting, the empty street, De Bour’s apparent avoidance of the officers, and the officer’s concern that he was armed justified seeking clarification. The officer merely asked De Bour to open his jacket and did not touch him until the revolver was visible, making this substantially less intrusive than the searches invalidated in the cases De Bour cited.

Because the initial inquiry was lawful and the follow-up request was narrowly tailored to an apparent safety concern, the gun was properly seized and suppression was properly denied.

Issue #4

Whether the anonymous telephone tip in La Pene justified the officers’ forcible stop and frisk of La Pene.

Holding

No. The tip and surrounding circumstances did not create reasonable suspicion that La Pene was unlawfully armed.

Reasoning

The Court set out a graduated framework for street encounters. An officer may make a minimal request for information on an objective, credible reason; may exercise the common-law right to inquire on founded suspicion of criminality; may forcibly stop a person on reasonable suspicion of a felony or misdemeanor; may frisk only when the officer reasonably believes the detainee is armed and dangerous; and may arrest on probable cause.

An anonymous telephone report is especially weak because the caller cannot be held accountable and the police cannot assess the caller’s credibility through a personal interaction. The tip here also lacked sufficient individualized detail: it described only a Black man wearing a red shirt at a bar, and the officers did not even determine whether other patrons matched that description.

The officers found no corroboration or exigency. La Pene was not acting furtively, threateningly, or suspiciously; the officer saw no bulge or other sign of a weapon; the bar was not shown to be in a high-crime area; and no one questioned the bartender or patrons before the frisk. A bare report that someone possesses a gun, without a report of its criminal use or other danger, does not itself justify this level of intrusion.

The officers could have approached La Pene and made the limited inquiry permitted by the tip. But ordering him to freeze and frisking him immediately exceeded their authority. The weapon therefore had to be suppressed, and the Appellate Division’s order in La Pene was reversed.

Concurrences

Judge Fuchsberg

Reasoning

Judge Fuchsberg agreed that La Pene’s conviction should be reversed because the anonymous report was not a reliable basis for the immediate frisk. He stressed, however, that the tip at least supplied several externally verifiable facts—a report of an ongoing offense, a location, and a general description—before the officers acted.

In his view, the contrast with De Bour made the affirmance in De Bour more troubling. Although the anonymous tip ultimately could not justify La Pene’s frisk, the De Bour officers had even less: no report of crime, no identified suspect, and no objectively suspicious conduct beyond De Bour’s crossing the street.

Dissents

Judge Fuchsberg

Reasoning

Judge Fuchsberg would have reversed De Bour’s conviction because the officers’ conduct was a detention, not a voluntary conversation. By their own account, the uniformed officers crossed directly into De Bour’s path and stopped him; one officer later positioned himself behind De Bour. That show of official authority restrained De Bour’s freedom to walk away and therefore constituted a seizure.

Under Terry and the Court’s prior decisions, a street detention requires objective, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. De Bour’s crossing the street, without more, was innocent conduct and could not furnish that suspicion. The officers had no report of crime, no reason to believe he was armed, no observed violation, no particularized description, and no emergency requiring quick action.

The majority’s characterization of the encounter as a permissible inquiry, in Judge Fuchsberg’s view, allowed police to detain citizens on a subjective hunch. He warned that treating ordinary conduct such as crossing a street as a sufficient basis for intervention would erase a meaningful limit on police discretion and invite dragnet-style stops.

Because the initial detention was unlawful, the later discovery of the gun could not validate it. Judge Fuchsberg therefore would have suppressed the weapon without deciding whether the subsequent request to open De Bour’s jacket was independently lawful.