People v. Moore
6 N.Y.3d 496, 814 N.Y.S.2d 567, 847 N.E.2d 1141 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An anonymous tip that provides only a general description of a person, combined with that person's action of walking away from police, does not constitute reasonable suspicion to justify an immediate forcible seizure at gunpoint. The legality of a stop must be justified at its inception and cannot be validated by subsequent actions of the suspect during the unlawful seizure.
Facts:
- An anonymous person called police to report a dispute involving a Black male, approximately 18 years old, wearing a gray jacket and red hat, who was armed with a gun.
- Police Officers Racioppo and Molinaro arrived at the location within a minute but observed no dispute in progress.
- The officers saw the defendant, William Moore, who matched the description provided by the anonymous caller, and he was the only individual in the vicinity fitting that description.
- As the officers exited their vehicle and walked toward Moore, he began to walk away from them.
- The officers immediately drew their guns and yelled “police, don’t move.”
- Moore stopped, and when ordered to raise his hands, he made a movement toward his waistband as he did so.
- Officer Racioppo conducted a pat-down of Moore and discovered a handgun in his jacket pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- William Moore was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the trial court (Supreme Court).
- Moore filed a motion in the trial court to suppress the gun as evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure.
- The trial court conducted a suppression hearing and denied Moore's motion.
- Moore appealed the decision to the intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that Moore's conduct after the initial approach justified the frisk.
- Moore was granted leave to appeal 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 combination of an anonymous tip identifying a person with a gun by description alone and that person's subsequent act of walking away from police constitute reasonable suspicion to justify an immediate forcible stop at gunpoint?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kaye
No. A forcible stop at gunpoint is not justified because the police lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion at the moment of the seizure. An anonymous tip that merely describes a person without providing any predictive information of criminal activity is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, as held in Florida v. J.L. The defendant's act of walking away from the officers did not elevate the encounter from a level-two common-law right of inquiry to a level-three forcible stop. Allowing such an escalation would effectively erase the right to be let alone, as it would make any attempt to walk away grounds for a seizure. The stop was unlawful at its inception, and the defendant's subsequent movement toward his waistband cannot retroactively validate the illegal police conduct.
Dissenting - Judge R.S. Smith
Yes. While an anonymous tip alone or avoidance of police alone is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion, the combination of both factors should be enough to justify a forcible stop. The court's rules are policy-based departures from a common-sense interpretation of 'reasonable suspicion.' When officers have a tip about a man with a gun who matches the description and that man then walks away upon their arrival, it is a powerful combination of factors. In such circumstances, society's interest in law enforcement and officer safety should permit a temporary stop to investigate the possibility that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for establishing reasonable suspicion under New York's De Bour framework and federal precedent from Florida v. J.L. It clarifies that a suspect's ambiguous action, such as merely walking away, does not corroborate an otherwise unreliable anonymous tip to the level required for a forcible seizure. The ruling strictly upholds the principle that a stop must be justified at its inception, preventing police from using a suspect's reaction to an illegal stop as justification for that stop. This precedent significantly constrains police authority to act on non-predictive anonymous tips, requiring officers to observe independent, articulable facts indicating criminal activity before escalating an encounter to a seizure.
