People v. Hollman
79 NY2d 181 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police encounter escalates from a permissible request for information to a common-law inquiry when an officer's questions become accusatory and would lead a reasonable person to believe they are the focus of a criminal investigation. This heightened level of intrusion must be justified by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
Facts:
- In the Hollman case, undercover officer Canale observed Troy Hollman and a companion acting unusually in the Port Authority Bus Terminal, including going up and down an escalator and standing apart for 20 minutes with a bag between them.
- After boarding a bus, Hollman placed his orange bag and his companion's black knapsack in an overhead rack several seats away from where they sat.
- Canale approached the two men on the bus, and in response to questioning, Hollman stated they were not traveling together and gave a different destination than his companion.
- When asked about luggage, both Hollman and his companion denied having any bags, despite the officer having seen them carry and place the orange bag and black knapsack.
- In the Saunders case, Officer Canale observed Gregory Saunders in a bus line, noting that Saunders appeared nervous, scanned the area, and hesitated upon making eye contact with the officer.
- Canale approached Saunders, identified himself, and asked where he was going.
- Immediately after Saunders answered, Canale asked for permission to search Saunders' gym bag.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Hollman case, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance and other crimes.
- Hollman filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the trial court, which was denied.
- Following the denial, Hollman pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, and a Judge of the Court of Appeals (highest court) granted Hollman leave to appeal.
- In the Saunders case, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance.
- Saunders' motion to suppress the evidence was denied by the trial court.
- Saunders pleaded guilty and appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction with one Justice dissenting.
- The dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted Saunders leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
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's encounter with a citizen escalate from a request for information, requiring only an objective credible reason, to a common-law inquiry, requiring a founded suspicion of criminality, when the officer's questions become pointed, accusatory, and focus on potential criminal conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wachtler
Yes. A police encounter escalates from a request for information to a common-law inquiry requiring a founded suspicion once an officer's questions become sufficiently intrusive and accusatory as to make a reasonable person believe they are suspected of wrongdoing. In Hollman's case, the officer's initial observations provided an objective, credible reason for a request for information. The subsequent questions about travel plans and luggage were permissible. When the men gave contradictory answers and falsely denied possessing bags the officer had seen them carry, the officer developed a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, justifying the more intrusive questions about the bags' ownership. Their denial of ownership constituted abandonment, making the search lawful. In Saunders' case, the officer's observation of nervousness provided a sufficient basis to approach and ask for information, such as his destination. However, the officer crossed the line by immediately asking to search Saunders' bag, as this was an intrusive and accusatory question not supported by a founded suspicion of criminality. Because the request to search was an improper police inquiry, Saunders' resulting consent was invalid.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies New York's four-tiered framework for evaluating police-citizen encounters established in People v. De Bour. By distinguishing a 'request for information' from a 'common-law inquiry' based on the content and tone of police questions, the court provides greater protection to individual privacy than the prevailing federal Fourth Amendment standard. The ruling establishes that an officer cannot escalate to intrusive, accusatory questions, particularly a request to search property, without a 'founded suspicion' of criminality, thereby limiting police power in street encounters. This precedent mandates a fact-specific analysis by suppression courts and reinforces New York's independent common-law tradition of safeguarding citizens from arbitrary police conduct.
