The People v. Nicholas Hill
This text of The People v. Nicholas Hill (The People v. Nicholas Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
State of New York MEMORANDUM Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
No. 27 The People &c., Respondent, v. Nicholas Hill, Appellant.
Susan Epstein, for appellant. John T. Hughes, for respondent. The Bronx Defenders, et al., amici curiae.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress
granted and the indictment dismissed.
-1- -2- No. 27
Defendant Nicholas Hill was approached by New York Police Department officers
after they observed him exiting and reentering a building in a New York City Housing
Authority development several times. Upon the officers’ request, defendant explained that
he was visiting a friend who lived in the building. The officers asked defendant for his
identification, which he provided. An officer then took defendant’s identification to the
eleventh floor of the building to verify whether the occupant of the apartment defendant
identified knew him.1 Another officer instructed defendant to “stand right there” under the
watch of two officers. When the first officer returned, having determined that the occupant
of the apartment did not know defendant, defendant was arrested for trespassing. At the
precinct, officers conducted a search of defendant’s person incident to his arrest and
recovered 42 bags of crack cocaine from his groin area.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the police encounter
constituted a level-three seizure under People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210 [1976]) and was
not justified by a requisite reasonable suspicion. The People contended that the encounter
was a level-one request for information under De Bour, for which the officers had a
requisite objective credible reason. After a hearing, the suppression court denied
defendant’s motion, concluding that the encounter was an appropriately justified level-one
inquiry because defendant was free to leave until he was arrested, and that there was
1 Defendant contends he told the officers a different apartment number than the one they visited, and it is undisputed that the occupant across the hall from the one the police visited was the friend to whom defendant referred. Our decision does not depend on whether defendant provided the correct apartment number to the police. -2- -3- No. 27
probable cause to support his arrest for trespassing once the arresting officers learned that
he was unknown to the apartment’s occupant. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance in the third degree. The Appellate Division, holding that the trial
court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress, affirmed the judgment.
At the suppression hearing, the People justified the officers’ interaction with
defendant purely on the ground that it was a level-one inquiry supported by an objective
credible reason. At its inception, this was “a general, nonthreatening encounter in which
an individual is approached for an articulable reason and asked briefly about his or her
identity, destination, or reason for being in the area” (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181,
191 [1992]). That request implicated only level one of De Bour (see id.) and required only
an objective credible reason to make basic inquiries of defendant (De Bour, 40 NY2d at
223). On this record, the initial inquiry was justified.
However, the record demonstrates that the encounter thereafter rose beyond a level-
one request for information, which the People failed to justify as lawful. Consequently,
the People have failed to preserve any argument that the encounter in this case was justified
under levels two or three of De Bour.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order reversed, defendant’s motion to suppress granted and indictment dismissed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur. Judge Feinman took no part.
Decided May 2, 2019
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
The People v. Nicholas Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-v-nicholas-hill-ny-2019.