People v. De Bour
1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2873, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The level of permissible police intrusion during a street encounter must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the encounter. Police may approach a citizen to request information based on an objective, credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality.
Facts:
- At 12:15 a.m., Louis De Bour was walking alone on a street in Brooklyn known for a high incidence of drug activity.
- When De Bour was within 30 to 40 feet of two uniformed police officers, he crossed to the other side of the street.
- The officers followed De Bour across the street and intercepted him.
- Officer Steck asked De Bour what he was doing in the neighborhood, and De Bour replied nervously that he had just parked his car and was going to a friend’s house.
- The officer then asked De Bour for identification, which De Bour stated he did not have.
- As De Bour was answering, Officer Steck noticed a slight bulge at De Bour's waist inside his jacket.
- The officer asked De Bour to unzip his jacket.
- De Bour complied, revealing the butt of a revolver in his waistband.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis De Bour's motion to suppress the revolver as evidence was denied by the trial court after a hearing.
- Following the denial, De Bour pleaded guilty to felonious attempted possession of a weapon.
- De Bour appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction without opinion.
- De Bour then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching a private citizen on the street to request information when there is no concrete indication of criminality, but there is an objective, articulable reason for the encounter?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
No. A police officer's approach to a citizen to request information does not violate the Fourth Amendment, provided there is some objective, credible reason for the interference, even if that reason is not necessarily indicative of criminality. The court established a four-tiered framework for evaluating the reasonableness of police conduct. The first level, a request for information, was justified here because De Bour's actions of conspicuously crossing the street late at night in a high-crime area provided an objective, credible reason for the officers to approach him. This initial encounter was not a forcible seizure. The encounter then permissibly escalated when the officer noticed a waistband bulge, which is telltale of a weapon. This observation created a justifiable apprehension for the officer's safety, rendering the minimal intrusion of asking De Bour to open his jacket reasonable.
Dissenting - Fuchsberg, J.
Yes. A police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by detaining a citizen without an articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. The act of crossing a street is innocuous conduct and does not create an articulable suspicion of criminality required by Terry v. Ohio to justify a seizure. The officer's own testimony confirmed that they 'stopped the man' and 'caused him to stand still,' which constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Because the initial stop was unconstitutional and lacked any objective basis beyond a mere hunch, the subsequently discovered weapon is fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been suppressed.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established a uniquely New York, four-tiered framework for evaluating the constitutionality of police-citizen street encounters, which provides a more nuanced analysis than the federal standard. It created a level of permissible police intrusion—the 'request for information'—that is justified by a standard less than the 'reasonable suspicion' required for a Terry stop. This framework gives police in New York greater latitude to initiate encounters based on an 'objective, credible reason,' while also providing courts a detailed, graduated scale to review the reasonableness of escalating police conduct. The De Bour framework remains the controlling standard for street encounter analysis in New York State.
