People v. Stover

• Decision Date: 12 March 2020
• Docket Number: 110715
• Citation: 181 A.D.3d 1061,120 N.Y.S.3d 650
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory STOVER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 1061

120 N.Y.S.3d 650

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Gregory STOVER, Appellant.

110715

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: December 18, 2019

Decided and Entered: March 12, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Garry, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.), rendered October 29, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Defendant was in his parked vehicle when police officers approached the car, asked him for identification and discovered that his driver's license was suspended. The officers arrested defendant for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and arranged to tow the car. Upon conducting an inventory search, the officers found a handgun in the trunk. Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and thereafter moved for suppression of the handgun. Following a hearing, County Court denied the motion, finding that the police officers' initial approach was appropriate, and that the handgun was seized pursuant to a lawful inventory search. Without waiving his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and was sentenced, in accord with the plea agreement, to a prison term of five years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision.¹ Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends, among other things, that his suppression motion should have been granted because the officers did not have a valid reason for their initial approach to his vehicle. "In People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 (1976) ), the Court of Appeals ‘set forth a graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police: level one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality; level two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater intrusion and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot; level three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual, and requires a reasonable suspicion that the particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor; level four, arrest, requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime’ " ( People v. Rose, 155 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 65 N.Y.S.3d 323 [2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 986, 77 N.Y.S.3d 664, 102 N.E.3d 441 [2018], quoting People v. Moore, 6 N.Y.3d 496, 498–499, 814 N.Y.S.2d 567, 847 N.E.2d 1141 [2006] [citation omitted]; see People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d at 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 ). A police approach to an occupied, stationary vehicle is subject to the first level of the De Bour analysis (see People v. Stevenson, 149 A.D.3d 1271, 1272, 52 N.Y.S.3d 533 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1134, 64 N.Y.S.3d 684, 86 N.E.3d 576 [2017] ; People v. Boler, 106 A.D.3d 1119, 1121, 964 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2013] ).² Thus, police officers were authorized to approach defendant's vehicle and ask him "briefly about his ... identity, destination, or reason for being in the area" only if this intrusion was "supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality" ( People v. Grays, 179 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 114 N.Y.S.3d 531, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 00002, [2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Whalen, 101 A.D.3d 1167, 1168, 956 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1105, 965 N.Y.S.2d 801, 988 N.E.2d 539 [2013] ; People v. Wallgren, 94 A.D.3d 1339, 1340–1341, 943 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2012] ).

A police officer testified that, on the night of the incident, he and his partner were surveilling the parking lot of a private club, an area he described as a "hot spot" for crimes. At approximately 3:00 a.m., they saw a white Honda pull in and park in the lot; the driver got out and entered the club. The officer and his partner then left the area and returned approximately 40 minutes later. The officer could not remember whether the club was still open at that time; he said that it ordinarily closed at 4:00 a.m. or a little earlier. A few cars were still present in the lot, including the white Honda. The vehicle was parked in the same location where the officers had seen it earlier, and was occupied by defendant, whom the officers believed they had seen earlier driving the car and entering the club. Defendant was alone in the car and was engaged in a loud, "heated argument" on his cell phone.

The officers approached, asked defendant "what he was doing in the car [and] if everything was okay," and requested identification. Defendant responded that everything was fine and that "he was having an argument with his girlfriend," and he provided a facially valid driver's license. Upon running the license, the officers learned that it had been suspended for an insurance lapse. The officers then arrested defendant, conducted the inventory search and discovered the gun in the trunk.³

The authority of police to approach individuals and request information is fairly broad, but such an intrusion "must be predicated on more than a hunch, whim, caprice or idle curiosity" ( People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 985, 629 N.Y.S.2d 161, 652 N.E.2d 907 [1995] ; see People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 190, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992] ; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d at 217, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 ). The Court of Appeals has held that the fact that an encounter took place in "a discrete area of a city identified as a high crime area" does not, without more, justify police in approaching an individual to request information and identification ( People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 526, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329 [2001] ; see People v. Savage, 137 A.D.3d 1637, 1639, 28 N.Y.S.3d 184 [2016] ; People v. Johnson, 109 A.D.3d 449, 450, 970 N.Y.S.2d 550 [2013], lv dismissed 23 N.Y.3d 1001, 992 N.Y.S.2d 765, 16 N.E.3d 1243 [2014] ; People v. Miles, 82 A.D.3d 1010, 1011, 918 N.Y.S.2d 594 [2011] ). As that Court explained, "it has been crucial whether a nexus to conduct existed, that is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information " beyond mere presence in an area where others had been known to commit crimes ( People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d at 526–527, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329 [emphases added] ). Here, there was no such nexus between the presence of defendant's vehicle in a high-crime area and any conduct on his part.

Police had seen defendant enter the club earlier and had no reason to believe that he was anything but a customer with a legitimate reason to be there. His vehicle was legally parked on private property (see People v. Mobley, 48 A.D.3d 374, 375, 853 N.Y.S.2d 31 [2008] ; compare People v. Stevenson, 149 A.D.3d at 1272, 52 N.Y.S.3d 533 ; People v. Alejandro, 142 A.D.3d 876, 876, 38 N.Y.S.3d 146 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1070, 47 N.Y.S.3d 229, 69 N.E.3d 1025 [2016] ; People v. O'Brien, 140 A.D.3d 1325, 1325–1326, 32 N.Y.S.3d 741 [2016] ; People v. Thomas, 19 A.D.3d 32, 33–34, 792 N.Y.S.2d 472 [2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 795, 801 N.Y.S.2d 816, 835 N.E.2d 676 [2005] ). The club was either still open or had just closed, and a few other vehicles were present (see People v. Miles, 82 A.D.3d at 1010–1011, 918 N.Y.S.2d 594 ; compare People v. Grays, 179 A.D.3d 1149, 1149–50, 114 N.Y.S.3d 531, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 00002 ; People v. Dunn, 253 A.D.2d 712, 712, 680 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1998], lvs denied 92 N.Y.2d 1031, 684 N.Y.S.2d 496, 707 N.E.2d 451 [1998]). The condition of defendant's vehicle posed no reason for concern (compare People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447 [1982] ; People v. Whalen, 101 A.D.3d at 1168, 956 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; People v. Evans, 175 A.D.2d 456, 457, 572 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1991], lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 856, 580 N.Y.S.2d 728, 588 N.E.2d 763 [1992] ). Police had not observed any erratic or unusual driving when defendant arrived (compare People v. Karagoz, 143 A.D.3d 912, 914, 39 N.Y.S.3d 217 [2016] ; People v. Wallgren, 94 A.D.3d at 1340, 943 N.Y.S.2d 639 ), nor had they received tips or other information associating defendant's vehicle with any reason for further inquiry (compare People v. Farnsworth, 134 A.D.3d 1302, 1303, 22 N.Y.S.3d 612 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1068, 38 N.Y.S.3d 839, 60 N.E.3d 1205 [2016] ; People v. Witt, 129 A.D.3d 1449, 1449, 11 N.Y.S.3d 767 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 937, 17 N.Y.S.3d 100, 38 N.E.3d 846 [2015] ; People v. Boler, 106 A.D.3d at 1120, 964 N.Y.S.2d 688 ).

The only remaining factor – defendant's engagement in an argument on his cell phone while alone in his private vehicle – did not provide any apparent nexus to the drug and weapons crimes that police said were typically committed in the area, or give rise to any other objective reason to question his presence. Nothing about a driver's conduct in arguing on a cell phone, without more, suggests criminal activity related to weapons or drugs (compare People v. Haggray, 173 A.D.2d 962, 963, 569 N.Y.S.2d 472 [1991], lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 966, 574 N.Y.S.2d 946, 580 N.E.2d 418 [1991] ). A sole occupant of a private vehicle arguing with someone who is not present gives rise to no apparent reason for police to intervene, such as potential safety concerns (compare People v. Black, 59 A.D.3d 1050, 1050, 872 N.Y.S.2d 791 [2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 851, 881 N.Y.S.2d 663, 909 N.E.2d 586 [2009] ) or a need for assistance (compare People v. Grays, 179 A.D.3d 1149. 1149–50, 114 N.Y.S.3d 531, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 00002 ).

Thus, we find that police did not have the requisite objective, credible reason for approaching defendant's vehicle in the first instance. The encounter was further invalid because police had no objective, credible reason to extend the initial...