Definitions

Reasonable Justification: in this case, it means having reasonable suspicion that a crime has
been, is being, or will be committed

The right to flee: The right to run away from the police, so long as there is no reasonable
suspicion that illegal activities have been, are being, or will be performed.

Four tiered method of analysis (Cartagena): 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 common-law right of inquiry, a wholly separate level
of contact, is "activated by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and permits a
somewhat greater intrusion" (People v DeBour, supra, at 223). Where a police officer has
reasonable suspicion that a particular person was involved in a felony or misdemeanor, the
officer is authorized to forcibly stop and detain that person. Finally, where the officer has
probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime, an arrest is authorized.
Case Summary Connections

People of the State of New
York v David Holmes
● Man standing near known narcotics
location with a bulge in his pocket
● Was called to by officers but ran away
● Court denied request to suppress,,
appellate reversed decision
● No threat to public safety
● Had much less justification
than in case C, only a bulge
●

People of the State of New
York v Carlos Cartagena
● Officer received a tip that a man had a
gun
● Searched the man, felt a gun, arrested
him
● Court ruled that the search was illegal,
appellate overruled
● Similar in that there was a
threat to public safety
● Had reasonable justification,
received a tip in this one,
officer saw firsthand in case C

People of the State of New
York v Sixto Matienzo
● In a high crime area a man handed over ● Had suspicion of illegal activity
a brown paper bad in exchange for taking place
money ● Flight furnished reasonable
● Officers asked defendant to stop, he ran suspicion
into a delicatessen and threw away his
bag, which contained crack cocaine
● Defendant’s motion to suppress drugs
was denied
● Appellant affirmed decision

People of the State of New
York v Manuel Rivera
● A car ran a red light, was pulled over by ● Had reasonable to suspicion
officers that a crime was going to
● Man jumped out of the passenger side, happen
rached towards his waist
● Entered a building, was caught with
weapons and a body vest
● Court ruled that the officers were justified

Stay more on track

Focus more on the end, the right to search the bag

● Level I of De Bour requires an objective, credible reason to request information, “not

necessarily indicative of [any] criminality.”31 The court explained that an inquiry at this
level may include officers approaching private citizens to ask about the whereabouts of a
lost child, or aid someone in distress.32
● Level II requires a founded suspicion that there is some criminality afoot before making
any inquiries (known as the common law right of 25 Id. at 566. 26 Id. at 566–71; see
generally Sinead McLoughlin, High Court Study, Choosing A “Primacy” Approach: Chief
 Justice Christine M. Durham Advocating States Rights in Our Federalist System, 65
ALB. L. REV. 1161, 1167–73 (2002) (discussing the background and use of the primacy
approach). 27 De Bour, 362 N.E.2d at 571 (“In evaluating the police action we must
consider whether or not it was justified in its inception and whether or not it was
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation
permissible.” (citation omitted)). 28 Id. at 568. 29 Id. (citations omitted). 30 See People v.
Duuvon, 571 N.E.2d 654, 659 (N.Y. 1991) (Titone, J., concurring) (“Under our system of
judicial review, police-citizen street encounters must be treated as step-by-step
processes, each phase of which must be individually assessed by a court acting in
accordance with constitutional due process precepts. Indeed, that is precisely what our
judicial role requires.” (citing De Bour, 352 N.E.2d at 571–72)). 31 De Bour, 352 N.E.2d
at 571–72. 32 Id. at 568–69. LONG (DO NOT DELETE) 11/20/2014 9:21 AM 2013/2014]
New York’s De Bour Standard 1469 inquiry).33 At this level, police officers are acting in
their role as law enforcement, attempting to gain information in order to ascertain
whether a crime has been committed.34 At both the first and second levels of De Bour, a
citizen may refuse to answer an officer’s questions and is under no obligation to remain
there with the police.35
● Level III requires reasonable suspicion before a stop or frisk.36 This level specifically
requires a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed a crime before
engaging in a detention or pat-down.37
● Level IV requires probable cause that a person has committed a crime in order to arrest
an individual.38 Levels III and IV both correspond to federal standards that require
reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a stop and frisk or arrest, respectively.39 In
establishing Levels I and II the court provided greater protections for citizens, by
restraining police conduct beyond the requirements set by the United States Supreme
Court.
http://www.albanylawreview.org/Articles/Vol77_4/77.4.1465%20Long.pdf