People v. Savage, 137 A.D.3d 1637 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed the judgement and conviction, vacated the plea, and granted the motion to suppress all evidence after finding the police lacked an objective, credible reason to justify an initial approach and request for information.  

The court, citing a lack of evidence to support the police encounter, offered the following language in support: “In evaluating police conduct, a court “must determine whether the action taken was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter” (People v Nicodemus, 247 AD2d 833, 835, 669 NYS2d 98 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 858, 699 NE2d 448, 677 NYS2d 88 [1998]; see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222-223, 352 NE2d 562, 386 NYS2d 375 [1976]). At the first level of a police-civilian encounter, i.e., a request for information, a police officer may approach an individual “when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality” (De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223), and “[t]he request may ‘involve[ ] basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination’ ” (People v Garcia, 20 NY3d 317, 322, 983 NE2d 259, 959 NYS2d 464 [2012], quoting People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185, 590 NE2d 204, 581 NYS2d 619 [1992]). Although the first level “sets a low bar for an initial encounter” (People v Barksdale, 26 NY3d 139, 143, 20 NYS3d 296, 41 NE3d 1111 [2015]), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless observed that, “[i]n determining the legality of an encounter under De Bour and Hollman, it has been crucial whether a nexus to [defendant’s] conduct existed, that is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information. The fact that an encounter occurred in a high crime vicinity, without more, has not passed De Bour and Hollman scrutiny” (People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521, 526-527, 755 NE2d 329, 730 NYS2d 265 [2001]).”