Does 'DeBour' Permit a Fifth Level of Police-Citizen Encounter?
In his Criminal Law and Procedure column, Barry Kamins writes that despite 'People v. DeBour's' clear delineation of four tiers of street encounters initiated by police officers, lower courts have occasionally permitted an additional type, somewhere between the common-law right of inquiry and the forcible stop, that has not yet been fully addressed by the Court of Appeals.
May 29, 2015 at 04:22 PM
11 minute read
Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of People v. DeBour,1 the watershed decision that articulated a four-tiered method for evaluating the propriety of street encounters initiated by police officers. Convinced of its continuing vitality, 16 years later the Court of Appeals expressed its confidence in DeBour's analysis2 and recently applied the same analysis to traffic stops.3
Despite DeBour's clear delineation of four tiers or levels of encounters, lower courts have occasionally permitted an additional type of encounter that has not yet been fully addressed by the Court of Appeals. Recently, an appellate judge touched on the issue when, in disagreeing with her colleagues, she opined that “the majority is sanctioning a fifth level of police intrusion, somewhere between the common-law right of inquiry and the forcible stop, not justified by the DeBour analysis.”4 This column will discuss the propriety of such encounters.
Four Levels
Pursuant to level one of DeBour, an officer can approach a citizen to request information; this is permissible when there is some objective credible reason for that interference, although not necessarily indicative of criminality. Under level two, an officer can conduct a common-law right to inquire; this is activated by a founded suspicion of some minimal level of criminal activity.
Under level three, an officer can forcibly stop and detain a person when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor. In addition, if the officer has a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous, the officer can conduct a frisk. Finally, pursuant to level four, a police officer may arrest and take into custody a person whom he has probable cause to believe has committed a crime.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRapper 50 Cent Sues NYC Jeweler for $5 Million Over Imitation Necklace, Use of Image
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readNew York's Court System Says More Work Is Needed To Clear Up Case Delays
13 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250