People v. Johnson New York Court of Appeals 40 N.Y.3d 172 (2023)
In the case of People v. Johnson, the primary legal issue revolves around whether the police had the requisite level of suspicion to justify a stop and frisk of Tyquan Johnson under the De Bour framework. Specifically, the court examined if the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that Johnson had committed a crime or was in possession of a weapon, thereby justifying a level three stop and frisk.
See also Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure
Criminal Appeals Lawyer in New York
Facts of the Case
On an early evening in April 2015, Officers Bradley Pike and Darrel Schultz were patrolling an area in Rochester that had recently experienced a rise in violent crime. Both officers were in uniform and riding in a marked vehicle. As they drove up Harvest Street, Officer Pike noticed a parked Ford Explorer about 50 feet ahead. The vehicle’s only occupant, Tyquan Johnson, moved from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat. Officer Pike observed Johnson momentarily move his upper body back toward the driver’s seat.
Officer Pike stopped his patrol car behind Johnson’s car and turned on the overhead lights to better see into Johnson’s vehicle. There is no indication that Johnson was aware of the police presence at this time. Both Officer Pike and Johnson exited their respective vehicles. Officer Pike noticed that Johnson’s pants were unbuttoned, his belt undone, and that he was trying to pull his pants up as he walked down the street. Officer Pike asked Johnson to hold up, but Johnson continued to walk away. When Officer Pike caught up to Johnson, he asked if Johnson was nervous, to which Johnson replied that he was not. Officer Pike then asked if Johnson had any weapons on him, and Johnson replied, “Nothing.”
Officer Pike proceeded to frisk Johnson, finding no weapon. During the frisk, Officer Pike felt an object in Johnson’s pocket that he thought might be a bag of drugs. He asked Johnson what was in his pockets, and Johnson replied, “Nothing.” According to Officer Pike, Johnson began emptying his pockets, throwing two bags of marijuana on the ground. Officer Pike also noticed that Johnson was holding a clear bag in his fist containing what appeared to be heroin. Officer Pike placed Johnson under arrest.
Johnson moved to suppress the drugs found on his person as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The court denied the motion to suppress, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. Johnson was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to five years on each count, to run concurrently. On appeal, Johnson renewed his arguments that Officer Pike’s initial request to stop violated level one of De Bour; that the Officer’s questioning violated level two, and that the stop and frisk violated level three. The Appellate Division affirmed, summarily holding that “the action taken by [Officer Pike] was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter leading to [Johnson]’s arrest.”
Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and frisk of Tyquan Johnson. The court concluded that Johnson’s actions, as observed by Officer Pike, did not meet the minimum standard required to justify a stop and frisk under De Bour. The court emphasized that Johnson’s behavior—moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat, moving his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat, pulling up his pants and attempting to buckle his belt, and appearing nervous while being questioned—constituted innocuous behavior that did not support a reasonable view that Johnson was armed or that he had committed or was about to commit a crime. As a result, the evidence seized as a result of the frisk was ordered to be suppressed, and the indictment was dismissed.
Applicable Law
The legal framework for evaluating police-initiated encounters with civilians in New York is established by the De Bour decision, which outlines a four-tiered approach:
- Level One: A request for information is permissible when there is some objective credible reason for the interference, not necessarily indicative of criminality.
- Level Two: The common-law right of inquiry allows officers to gain explanatory information short of a forcible seizure upon a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
- Level Three: A forcible stop and detention require the officer to entertain a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor. This level also includes the authority to frisk if the officer reasonably suspects that they are in danger of physical injury by virtue of the detainee being armed.
- Level Four: An arrest and taking into custody are permissible when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime or offense in the officer’s presence.
In People v. Johnson, the court focused on whether the police had reasonable suspicion to justify a level three stop and frisk. The court concluded that the police did not have reasonable suspicion based on the observed behavior of Johnson, which was deemed innocuous and not indicative of criminal activity.
Key Terms for Better Understanding
- Reasonable Suspicion: A standard used in criminal procedure, reasonable suspicion is a belief based on specific and articulable facts that a person is involved in criminal activity.
- Stop and Frisk: A brief, non-intrusive police stop of a suspect. The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity to justify a stop-and-frisk.
- De Bour Framework: A four-tiered approach established by the New York Court of Appeals to evaluate the propriety of police-initiated encounters with civilians.
- Innocuous Behavior: Actions that are harmless and not indicative of criminal activity.
- Suppression of Evidence: A legal process by which evidence collected in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights is excluded from being used in court.
Criminal Appeals Lawyer in New York
Conclusion
The People v. Johnson case underscores the importance of adhering to the legal standards established by the De Bour framework when evaluating police-initiated encounters with civilians. The court’s decision to reverse the Appellate Division’s ruling and suppress the evidence seized during the stop and frisk highlights the necessity of reasonable suspicion to justify such intrusions. This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights, emphasizing the need for police actions to be grounded in specific and articulable facts rather than mere hunches or innocuous behavior.