People v. Leung

• Decision Date: 10 July 1986
• Citation: 506 N.Y.S.2d 320,497 N.E.2d 687,68 N.Y.2d 734
• Parties: , 497 N.E.2d 687 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Girven LEUNG, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 320

506 N.Y.S.2d 320

68 N.Y.2d 734, 497 N.E.2d 687

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Girven LEUNG, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 10, 1986.

Abraham L. Clott and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. (Emil Bricker, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 116 A.D.2d 666, 497 N.Y.S.2d 734 (1986) should be affirmed.

While on plain-clothes duty and patrolling, in an unmarked car, an area of Queens known for its narcotics activity, Police Officers Leo, Harvey and DeLavan observed defendant and another man in conversation and saw defendant pass his companion a three- by five-inch brown envelope which appeared to resemble "three dollar bags" used in drug transactions. Officers Leo and Harvey left the unmarked car and identified themselves as police officers. Defendant immediately fled, with Officers Leo and Harvey in pursuit. As he ran, defendant discarded a hat, and then threw a black object under some bushes. Defendant stopped running and was apprehended by Officer Leo at a spot approximately five houses from where the pursuit began. The black object thrown by defendant was recovered from nearby bushes and was found to be a loaded, operable nine-millimeter pistol. On appeal, defendant contends that the initial police action was an investigato stop, and that neither police observation of the passing of a manila envelope, nor defendant's exercise of his constitutional right to leave without answering questions, provided police with a reasonable suspicion that he had committed, or was about to commit, a crime.

In People v. De Bour, we held that judicial review of the legality of police conduct must weigh the interference such conduct entails against the precipitating and attendant conditions known to the police as the encounter unfolds (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; see also, People v. Stewart, 41 N.Y.2d 65, 390 N.Y.S.2d 870, 359 N.E.2d 379). We set forth a synopsis, representing the gradation of permissible police authority in encounters with citizens in public places, that correlated the degree of the officer's objectively credible belief with the permissible scope of his intervention (People v. De Bour, supra, 40 N.Y.2d p. 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). The present case presents a situation wherein the level of police intrusion was an appropriate response to the observations and beliefs of the officers involved.

Although in exiting their unmarked car and identifying themselves as policemen the officers may have intended to seek explanatory information from defendant, or to detain him, there is no evidence that, prior to defendant's flight, the police did anything more than approach him. The fact that defendant passed what appeared to be a "three dollar bag" in a neighborhood known for its drug activity constitutes, at the least, the "objective credible reason" necessary to support the intrusion attendant to a police approach of a citizen (see, id.). When coupled with defendant's immediate flight upon the officer's approach, the passing of the manila envelope in this narcotics-prone neighborhood establishes the necessary reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed, or was about to commit a crime, such that pursuit by the officers was justified (see, People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 592, 430 N.Y.S.2d 578, 408 N.E.2d 908; People v. Corrado, 22 N.Y.2d 308, 313-314, 292 N.Y.S.2d...