New York Criminal Attorney Blog

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE - ONCE REASON FOR STOP OF VEHICLE IS ADDRESSED, POLICE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DETAIN OR ASK TO SEARCH VEHICLE

2010-02-26T20:40:04Z

An issue sometimes arises in New York when the police stop a vehicle for a traffic violation or other legitimate reason but continue to detain the driver after the ticket has been issued or other legitimate police concerns have been addressed. Where a driver is stopped for a traffic infraction and issued a ticket, it is improper for the officer to then ask for permission to search the car. At that point, the request to search exceeds the scope of the reasonable detention of the motorist for the traffic infraction. People v. Banks, 85 N.Y.2d 558, 626 N.Y.S.2d 986, 650 N.E.2d 833 (1995).
Furthermore, where a roving border patrol officer stops a vehicle he or she suspects contains illegal aliens, it is improper to ask to search the trunk once that officer determines that the vehicle does not contain illegal aliens. To do so would exceed the scope of the stop. People v. LaRose, 5 Misc.3d 621 (St. Lawrence Co.Ct. 2004). In LaRose, the County Court held that a roving border patrol agent could make an investigatory stop of a vehicle with Texas plates observed near the Canadian border making “improbable” turns (whatever that means).
Generally, investigatory stops are illegal if they are not based upon reasonable cause to believe that a traffic infraction has occurred. People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413 (1975). In fact, in Ingle, the Court held that it was improper for the officer to stop the car because of its unusual appearance. Therefore, it would appear that the even initial stop in LaRose was illegal because the officer admitted it was not based upon reasonable cause to believe a traffic infraction had been committed but instead was based upon the officer’s belief that it was unusual to see a car with Texas plates near the Canadian border.
However, the LaRose decision relied upon a United States Supreme Court decision which held that where an officer’s observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain illegal aliens, the government interest at stake may justify the minimal intrusion of a brief investigatory stop. U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).
For more information about this, and other criminal defense issues, please contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

NEW YORK SEARCH & SEIZURE - A PHONE TIP REPORTING A CAR DRIVING ERRATICALLY BY ITSELF IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY POLICE STOPPING THE CAR [People v. Royko]

2010-02-21T20:27:54Z

One of the first questions I ask a defendant charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Ability Impaired or Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs or any type of possession crime such as drugs or guns, is what brought about his or her initial contact with the police. If their vehicle was stopped by the police, my next area of inquiry is “was the stop legal”? Today, with a cell phone in virtually every car, we are seeing more and more cases where motorists are reporting erratic driving to the police right from the road. The question therefore is: can the police stop a vehicle based solely on a phone tip that the vehicle was driving erratically? The answer is no.
In People v. Royko, 201 A.D.2d 863 (4th Dept. 1994), the police received a call reporting a car driving erratically. About an hour later, officers saw the vehicle parked outside a restaurant and later observed the vehicle driving down the street. The officers then stopped the vehicle, at which time they detected to odor of an alcoholic beverage and observed the driver to have bloodshot, watery eyes. The driver admitted to having two beers and was unable to perform standardized field sobriety tests. The driver was subsequently arrested for Driving While Intoxicated.
At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that his sole purpose for stopping defendant’s vehicle was the radio dispatch he had heard regarding the erratic driving an hour earlier. The officer made no independent observations. The Fourth Department held that the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop a vehicle based upon a report that it was driving erratically an hour earlier. The officers made no independent observations of erratic driving and further they had no way of knowing if it was the same driver. The defendant’s suppression motion was therefore, granted.
If you have been charged with any offense anywhere in the New York City, Westchester, or surrounding areas, call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 for a complimentary telephone consultation or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

NEW YORK DESK APPEARANCE TICKET - DAT

2010-02-16T17:28:06Z

New York criminal defense attorneys know that a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) can be your best friend. Its great for the attorney who doesn't have to go to Court in the middle of the night to do an arraignment, its great for the client who doesn't have to be locked up for 24 hours or more while they are waiting to see a judge and its even good for the police who can process the arrest at their leisure and who do not have to worry about racking up police overtime while processing the arrest.

Briefly, a DAT in New York is simply a notification to a person arrested that they must appear in Court on a future date in connection with certain specific charges. The police officer or prosecutor will then file those charges in Court. It permits a police officer to release the person prior to the charges being filed in Court and prior to seeing a judge.

DATs are governed by New York CPL Article 150 which limits when police officers may issue Desk Appearance Tickets. In sum, they may only be issued for Class A and B misdemeanors, Class E felonies and violations. There are also some specific exceptions such as certain Escape, Absconding or Bail Jumping charges. People charged with those crimes or more serious felonies will not be eligible for Desk Appearance Tickets.

It should be emphasized that Desk Appearance Tickets are issued at the discretion of the police. Ultimately, it is the police who will decide whether or not to issue a person a DAT. Ironically, in New York City, where a person can spend more than 24 hours waiting to see a judge and winding their way through the Central Booking Process, fewer cases are DAT'd than in other places where the arraignment process can be much shorter. In New York City, charges such at DWI, DWAI, Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle are almost never DAT'd whereas outside of New York City they usually are DAT'd.

The statute permits police officers to accept bail as a condition of getting a Desk Appearance Ticket but in New York City the police will not accept bail. Bail amounts can range as a a maximum of $750 for an "E" felony down to a maximum of $100 for a violation.

DATs are a useful tool and for a person who is going to be arrested, they can be a huge benefit. If you are going to turn yourself in to the police an experienced attorney should explore whether or not you are eligible for and whether you will receive a desk appearance ticket. In many cases everyone wins when the accused is issued a DAT.

REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP A VEHICLE: POLICE APPROACH PARKED CAR AND IT PULLS AWAY

2010-02-12T02:14:56Z

If you a charged with an offense such as Driving While Intoxicated, weapons offense (guns, etc) or controlled substance offense (cocaine, crack, marijuana etc), one of the first areas a criminal defense attorney will look at is why the police stopped you in the first instance. In other words, what brought about that initial contact between you and the police? If the stop was illegal, all evidence, including observations, obtained as a result of that illegal stop should be suppressed.
In New York, an officer may approach an individual sitting in a parked car and request information provided they have an articulable reason not necessarily related to criminal activity. For example, in a case discussed in a prior blog, despite the fact that it is legal to do so, officers may approach an individual sitting in the driver’s seat of a car parked in front of a fire hydrant and request the that person’s license and pedigree information. People v. Thomas, 19 A.D.3d 32, (1st 2005). In New York, this is referred to as a “Request for Information”.
Obviously an officer cannot request information from a person in a moving car; that car must be stopped first. In order to legally stop a vehicle, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a person in that vehicle was involved in a felony or a misdemeanor or that the vehicle committed a traffic infraction. In New York, this is referred to a “Stop”. Therefore, what if that parked car in Thomas had started to pull away just as the officer had pulled up? The officer would have had to actually stop that car.
In People v. May, 81 N.Y.2d 725 (1992), the police approached a car parked on desolate street in a known drug area. Just as the police pulled up on the parked car, it slowly pulled away at which time the officers activated their emergency lights and stopped the vehicle. The officers subsequently learned that the vehicle was stolen and upon a search of the driver after his arrest, drugs were found. The Court of Appeals held that the stop was illegal because, once the vehicle pulled away, the officers needed reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed. The evidence, ruled the Court, should have been suppressed.
For more information, or if you have been arrested in New York, call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE - POLICE MAY REQUEST LICENSE AND PEDIGREE INFORMATION FROM PERSON IN DRIVER’S SEAT OF A VEHICLE PARKED IN FRONT OF A FIRE HYDRANT

2010-02-10T02:02:09Z

In a case involving a New York City drug case, the Appellate Division held that a police officer may request the driver’s license and pedigree of an individual sitting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked in front of a fire hydrant. People v. Thomas, 19 A.D.3d 32, 792 N.Y.S.2d 472 (1st 2005).
In Thomas, the police approached a defendant who was sitting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked in front of a fire hydrant and asked him for his license and pedigree information. A computer check indicated that defendant’s license was suspended and he was then arrested. Upon searching his pockets, the police found “crack” cocaine. Defendant was subsequently charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in the Third Degree (VTL § 511(1)(a)) and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree (Penal Law § 220.06).
In granting the defendant’s motion and suppressing the drug evidence, the Honorable William A. Wetzel of the New York County Supreme Court found, and I believe correctly, that by stopping his police van so as to block in defendant’s vehicle, the officer had in fact “stopped” defendant. Because J. Wetzel found the police conduct constituted a “stop”, the police needed probable cause. Noting that VTL § 1202(3)(b) permits parking in front of a fire hydrant provided a licensed driver is in the driver’s seat, J. Wetzel held that the officer did not have probable cause to suspect a traffic infraction had occurred (this is obvious because the officer would have had no way of knowing the driver’s license status).
In reversing, the First Department held that the blocking of the vehicle was not a “stop” and therefore the officer did not need probable cause/reasonable suspicion but instead only needed an objective, credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality to make was is referred to as a Level I “Request for Information”. Of key importance was the Court’s finding that the “blocking in” of an already parked vehicle is not a seizure. The Court agreed that had the vehicle been moving, however, the officer would have needed probable cause to stop it.
If you have been charged with any offense in New York from a simple traffic infraction to a misdemeanor or serious felony, one of the first lines of defense is challenging the legality of the police officer’s initial stop (seizure) of you or your motor vehicle. For more information call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE – SLOW DRIVING IN HIGH CRIME AREA AT NIGHT, WITHOUT MORE, INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE SUSPICION - GUN, CLIP AND BULLETS SUPPRESSED

2010-02-06T01:50:58Z

In any New York criminal case where the prosecution has obtained evidence such as guns or narcotics, that they intend to introduce at trial, one of the first areas a criminal defense attorney will explore is why the police stopped/seized and searched the defendant, his home, his vehicle etc. If the stop/seizure was illegal, all evidence obtained as a result of the stop should be suppressed.
In People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559 (1978), the police observed a vehicle driving slowly at night in a well traveled and well lit entertainment and shopping area. Several burglaries had recently taken place in the area. The police observed the occupants glance towards a bar as the vehicle actually came to a stop and paused for two seconds. The vehicle then continued to a stop sign where the police claimed the occupants glanced towards a second bar. At that point, the police stopped the vehicle. The driver exited the vehicle and told the police he did not have a license nor could he produce a registration card. The passengers were then ordered out of the vehicle and during a pat-down search, bullets were found in the pocket of one of the passengers. A gun was subsequently found in the vehicle.
The defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon and the bullets was denied and defendant was convicted of Unlawful Possession of Weapons by Persons Under Sixteen in violation of Penal Law 265.05. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendant’s suppression motion however, the Court of Appeals reversed holding that there was no objective evidence of criminal activity as of the time of the stop. The defendant’s “innocuous” acts of pausing in front of a bar and stopping at a stop sign did not reasonably denote criminal activity. The gun and bullets were therefore suppressed, the judgment vacated and the indictment dismissed.
For more information about this, or any other New York State or Federal criminal matter, please contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW - OFFICER’S OBSERVATION OF KNOWN MALE PROSTITUTE ENTERING VEHICLE IMPROPER BASIS FOR STOP OF VEHICLE. EVIDENCE OF INTOXICATION SUPPRESSED.

2010-02-01T21:45:07Z

A police officer may not stop your vehicle based upon hunches or gut feelings. A vehicle may only be stopped if the officer has reasonable suspicion of a violation of the law or in accordance with nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory, uniform procedures, such as at roadblocks, checkpoints and weighing stations.
In People v. Reynolds, 185 Misc.2d 674, 713 N.Y.S.2d 813 (N.Y.Co.Ct. 2000), the Monroe County Court held that an officer observing a known male prostitute entering a vehicle was insufficient to justify the stop of that vehicle. In fact, the Court suppressed a computer check of the vehicle’s registration. In Reynolds, the officer observed a known male prostitute enter a parked pick-up truck which then pulled away. The officer followed the pick-up truck and ran a computer check on the license plate number which revealed an expired registration. The officer then stopped the vehicle, separated the driver and passenger at which time he observed the driver the exhibit signs of intoxication. The driver was subsequently charged with Driving While Intoxicated. No prostitution related charges were ever filed.

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW A VEHICLE MAY NOT BE STOPPED FOR A “ROUTINE TRAFFIC CHECK” BECAUSE OF THE VEHICLE’S UNUSUAL APPEARANCE

2010-01-26T20:36:13Z

When a defendant is charged with a crime (such as Driving While Intoxicated or a Controlled Substances offense) based upon evidence found during a car stop, the first question an experienced defense attorney should ask is: “why was the car stopped?” If the stop was unconstitutional, any evidence found as a result of the stop should be suppressed.
While the police may conduct non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory traffic checks at roadblocks, checkpoints and weigh stations pursuant to uniform procedures, an officer may not single out one particular vehicle and stop it for a routine traffic check to check the driver’s license and look for possible equipment violations. A single vehicle may only stopped where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law has been committed. People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1975).
In Ingle, the officer singled out the defendant’s vehicle from the stream of traffic solely because of its unusual appearance. The vehicle was an old vintage 1949 Ford. The Trooper decided to conduct a routine traffic stop. The Court held the stop illegal and suppressed drugs that were subsequently found in the car.
If you have been charged in New York with any offense including Driving While Intoxicated, Unlicensed Operation, Drug and Controlled Substances Offenses or a Weapons Offense (guns, knives, etc), one of the first questions your attorney must ask is, “what brought about the initial police contact”? For more information, call toll free 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

Tilem & Campbell Cited in the New York Law Journal Regarding Change to New York Court Rules

2010-01-22T19:21:32Z

Back in August 19, 2009, New York law firm Tilem & Campbell, PC filed a lawsuit against two Bronx Supreme Court Clerks who routinely violated the law by rejecting papers that were submitted for filing without legal reason. As reported in the today's New York Law Journal, the case was settled earlier this week after New York's Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Ann T. Pfau, promulgated a new Court rule which set forth only four circumstances in which clerks may reject papers for filing. The new rule and the settlement were laid out in a blog on this site earlier this week.

Law partners Peter Tilem and John Campbell were both quoted in today's New York Law Journal article. The law suit was previously reported in the Law Journal when it was originally filed. The first article appeared in the August 25, 2009 edition of the Journal.

For more information about the case or the new rule contact Tilem & Campbell.

New York Law Firm Settles Case Against Bronx Court Clerks

2010-01-19T20:46:14Z

New York Law firm Tilem & Campbell settled its lawsuit against the Bronx Civil clerks office, today, after New York's Chief Administrative Judge amended the Court rules to comply with CPLR 2102(c). Civil Practice Law and Rules sect 2102(c) requires Court Clerks to accept legal papers submitted for filing unless a statute specifically prohibits the clerks from accepting the papers. The law became effective January 1, 2008 in response to the epidemic of Court Clerks rejecting papers for filing for the most mindless reasons. The practice was so widespread that Court Clerks prepared check-the-box forms to explain why your papers were rejected.

In response to the lawsuit brought under Article 78 of the CPLR entitled Tilem & Campbell, PC v. Tracy Pardo, Chief Clerk, Civil Division, et al. The Court rules, were amended to add Sect 202.5 (d)(1). Sect 202.5 (d) (1) now spells out only four circumstances in which clerks may reject papers submitted for filing. The four permissible reasons are:
i. The paper does not have an index number;
ii. The summons, complaint, petition or judgment sought to be filed with the County Clerk contains an "et al" or otherwise does not contain a full caption;
iii. The paper sought to be filed with the County Clerk is filed in the wrong Court; or
iv. The paper is not signed in accordance with section 130-1.1-a of the Rules of the Chief Administrator.

In addition, the County Clerk or chief clerk must now signify a refusal to accept a paper by use of a date stamp indicating the reason for the refusal.

New York lawyers, paralegals, process servers or others who routinely file papers in court should carry a copy of the new rule with them. If it is not yet available, this firm will provide a copy upon request.

Tilem & Campbell, PC v. Pardo arose out of the the Bronx Civil Clerk's refusal to accept an Order to Show Cause that this firm attempted to file because of some handwritten changes. This firm had made repeated attempts to remedy the matter and prior incidents with the Bronx Clerk without success.

IGNITION INTERLOCK BECOMES MANDATORY UPON CONVICTION FOR DWI IN NEW YORK

2010-01-18T21:47:33Z

Effective Dec 18, 2009, New York became the latest state to require the installation of an ignition interlock device for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor DWI in New York. The requirement applies to convictions in New York for Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Impaired by Drugs and Alcohol. The legislation was first reported http://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2009/05/new_york_may_soon_require_igni_1.html last May and is now effective.

The motorist will bear the cost of the installation and rental of the interlock device. Rental can cost about $50per month. Installation can run up to $200 or more depending on the model of the interlock unit and the type or car you drive. Besides the cost, motorists must keep in mind the embarrassment factor. The motorist will not only be required to blow into the device to start the car but also at random times while driving. The unit will be obvious to anyone in the car.

Anyone charged with a DWI or a related offense in New York should speak to an experienced criminal lawyer who specifically handles Driving While Intoxicated cases. The consequences of a DWI conviction in New York have become increasingly harsh with the possibility of jail, huge fines and surcharges, insurance consequences, the possibility of probation, loss of driving privileges and now the requirement of the ignition interlock system.

RAMAPO TOWN COURT IN THE SPOTLIGHT

2010-01-16T20:48:43Z

The Town of Ramapo located in Rockland County New York is Rockland County's largest geographically and most populous town. The Town covers more than 61 square miles and contains 12 villages most with Village Courts of their own. With a very diverse population, the Town Court in Ramapo is both busy and efficient. With major roads traversing through the town and low density of serious crimes, it would be fair to say that speeding violations are the bread and butter of the Ramapo Court, followed by other traffic violations such as tailgating, turn signal violations and stop signs.

Traffic misdemeanors (and felonies) such as DWI and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (AUO) top the criminal calendar. Many of the traffic violations and traffic misdemeanors take place along such major roads as I-287, I-87, Rt 59 and the Palisades Parkway.

The Town had three Justices. Judges Arnold Etelson, Rhoda Schoenberger and Samuel Coleman. Judge Coleman recently retired, leaving the Town one judge short and the Court extremely busy. Expect crowded calendars and long lines on Court days. Experienced attorneys can often get you out quickly but without an attorney, expect to wait.

The Court is located at 237 Route 59, Airmont, New York 10901.
The Court can be reached at (845) 357-5100 Ext. 239 or you can E-Mail the Court Clerk Helen Travers at justicecourtclerk@ramapo.org

TILEM & CAMPBELL WINS ANOTHER DWI TRIAL

2010-01-12T16:18:00Z

Westchester DWI defense firm, Tilem & Campbell won another DWI trial last week when Mount Pleasant Judge Nicholas Masselli issued a decision finding that the client who was pulled over on the side of the highway was not "operating" the vehicle and therefore could not be convicted of Driving While Intoxicated. Judge Masselli also dismissed another charge of Parking on the Pavement and issued an order sealing the record.

The case arose after the client was found sleeping behind the wheel of a running vehicle that was sitting on the side of the road by a New York State Trooper. The Trooper testified that he smelled the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on the driver's breath and that the driver failed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test that was performed on the side of the road. The Trooper testified that the driver failed other field sobriety tests and refused a breath test that he was offered at the police station.

Managing partner John Campbell tried the case on behalf of the firm and this victory makes three DWI wins in a row for Mr. Campbell. The defense focused on the troopers errors in administering and scoring the field sobriety tests and the lack of the intent to operate the vehicle.

Tilem & Campbell is a White Plains based criminal defense firm that has an extensive DWI and traffic practice. For more information contact Tilem & Campbell.

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW - STREET ENCOUNTERS WITH THE POLICE IN NEW YORK - The Four Levels of Intrusion

2010-01-10T23:10:33Z

As discussed in the previous blog New York police are limited in the way they interact with civilians that they encounter on the street. If the police overstep their authority an experienced criminal defense attorney can use the police conduct to get evidence in a case suppressed.

Below are the four levels of intrusion as set forth by the New York Court of Appeals in Debour. Keep in mind that each case is an individual and may be affected by the minute details of the case.

Level 1 “Request for Information”: The police may approach a civilian when they have some articulable, objective credible reason for doing so even if that reason is not necessarily indicative of criminality. This is not equivalent to a stop. These encounters should be brief and not be harassing or intimidating. For example, approaching possible witnesses to a crime and checking to see if everyone involved in an accident is alright.
Level 2: “Common-Law Right to Inquire”: This is a greater level of intrusion that must be based upon a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Here, the officer’s questioning might lead a person to believe they are suspected of criminality.
Level 3: “Forcible Stop and Frisk”: The police may stop and frisk an individual when they have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime (misdemeanor or felony). In such a situation, the police may frisk the individual if the officer reasonably suspects he is in danger because the individual is armed.
Level 4: “Arrest”: Of course, the most intrusive Level of a police encounter is an arrest. The police may arrest an individual when they have probable cause to believe that individual has committed a crime, whether in the officer’s presence or not, or an offense in his presence (See CPL 140.10).

If you have been charged with a crime, one the first areas your attorney should investigate is the legality of law enforcement’s stop and/or seizure of you or your vehicle. For more information, contact Tilem & Campbell toll free 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

NEW YORK SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW - STREET ENCOUNTERS WITH THE POLICE IN NEW YORK

2010-01-07T22:40:22Z

In New York, a large body of law has developed around police interaction with civilians that they encounter on the street. When may a police officer approach you for information, question you about criminal activity, detain you and finally, arrest you? Experienced New York criminal defense lawyers must be well versed in this area of law. If the police overstep their authority and thereby obtain evidence, skilled criminal attorneys can challenge that evidence in Court at a suppression hearing and have the evidence suppressed. Suppression of evidence can lead to the dismissal or reduction of charges, favorable jury verdicts and favorable plea bargains. Here at Tilem & Campbell, we have used suppression to obtain dismissals of some tough cases.

Suppression, can be especially valuable in fighting drug cases or gun cases since without the contraband as evidence, the case is almost always dismissed. But suppression can also be useful to prevent the admission at trial of statements, identifications, physical evidence of criminal activity or electronic surveillance.

No two cases are alike and each case and each set of facts must be analyzed by analogizing from previously decided cases with similar facts. In a well written and thorough decision, the New York Court of Appeals developed four “Levels” of police intrusions with each Level being based upon the intensity of the intrusion upon the civilian’s life. See People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976). These four level have become the guiding principle for police encounters with civilians on the streets of New York. So much so that New York Courts have cited to Debour well over 1600 times in judicial opinions that have been published in New York. That means that in the more than 33years since Debour was decided, New York Courts cited to it on average about 50 times per year in published opinions.

In the next blog, I will lay out the four levels of intrusion that the Court of Appeals described in Debour.

Remember, to consult with experienced criminal lawyers about the specific facts of a case.