People v. Hicks
500 N.E.2d 861, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 68 N.Y.2d 234 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Based on reasonable suspicion, police may briefly detain and transport a suspect a short distance to a crime scene for a prompt identification, without transforming the investigatory stop into a de facto arrest, provided the police are diligent and the intrusion is minimally necessary to quickly confirm or dispel suspicion.
Facts:
- Shortly after 4:00 a.m., a holdup occurred at a factory.
- A police radio broadcast described the robbers as two black men, approximately five-feet five-inches tall, in a green Pontiac.
- Seconds later, about a quarter mile from the factory, Officer Murray Wright saw two black men in a grey and black Buick sedan who appeared to be short.
- Officer Wright stopped the vehicle and observed that both men seemed to match the height description.
- When asked where they had been, the men claimed they were coming from work at American Brass, which Officer Wright knew was miles away in the opposite direction.
- Officer Wright informed the men about the robbery and told them he was taking them to the factory for possible identification, stating they would be released if not identified.
- The men were not handcuffed and accompanied the officer without objection to the factory, which was less than a minute's drive away.
- The entire encounter, from the completion of the holdup to the identification at the factory, took approximately 10 minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with first-degree robbery and related offenses.
- The defendant filed a motion in the trial court to suppress evidence, which was denied after the court found the police had probable cause to arrest.
- After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted.
- The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the conviction, finding the police action was a lawful investigatory detention supported by reasonable suspicion. Two justices dissented.
- The defendant 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 the nonconsensual detention and transportation of a suspect to a nearby crime scene for an immediate identification, based on reasonable suspicion but without probable cause, constitute an unlawful de facto arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No. The nonconsensual detention and transportation of the suspect to the nearby crime scene did not constitute an unlawful de facto arrest because it was a permissible and reasonable extension of a lawful investigatory stop. The initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent detention did not rise to the level of an arrest, as determined by what a reasonable, innocent person would have thought in the defendant's position. Factors indicating this was not an arrest include that the defendant was not handcuffed, no show of force was used, the time and distance were minimal, and he was informed of the limited purpose of the detention. The court found the police action was a diligent and minimally intrusive means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicion quickly. The reasonableness of moving the suspect was supported by specific factors: the police knew a crime had occurred, the detention was brief (under 10 minutes), the distance was short, eyewitnesses were present, and no less intrusive means were available.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the permissible scope of an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, establishing that moving a suspect a short distance for a showup identification is not automatically a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. The case provides a specific, multi-factor framework for lower courts to evaluate the reasonableness of such detentions, emphasizing brevity, proximity, and necessity. By rejecting the more amorphous "totality of the circumstances" test for this analysis under the New York State Constitution, the court aimed to provide clearer guidance to law enforcement and stronger protection for individual rights.
