The first and least intrusive form of police action is a request for information, which is permissible as long as the police have some objective reason for the intrusion and are not acting on a whim or hunch ( People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223 [1976] ). The second level is the common law right to inquire, under which a police officer with a “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot” may “interfere with a citizen to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but short of a forcible seizure”(Id. at 223). Next, New York Criminal Procedure Law §140.50 gives the police the authority to stop a suspect and demand the suspect's name, address and an explanation of the suspect's conduct when the police officer reasonably suspects that the suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor. That statute also authorizes an officer who reasonably suspects that there is a danger of physical injury, to search the citizen for deadly weapons. The final and most intrusive level of police interaction with individual citizens, is an arrest, where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime or offense in the officer's presence (DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d at 223).
It is well settled under this hierarchy of authority to detain that, “[w]hen the police lack a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, which is necessary to justify a forcible stop, they cannot stop an individual who exercises his or her right to be let alone and to refuse to respond to police inquiry” (People v. Adams, 194 A.D.2d 102, 106 (3rd Dept. 1993); see, also, People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 586 (1980) (“An individual to whom a police officer addresses a question has a constitutional right not to respond. He may remain silent or walk or run away. His refusal to answer is not a crime. Though the police officer may endeavor to complete the interrogation, he may not pursue, absent probable cause to believe that the individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, seize or search the individual or his possessions, even though he ran away.”,People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 112 (1975) (“[highlight]Before a person may be stopped in a public place a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that such person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.[/highlight]” ).
...in In re Davan L. (91 N.Y.2d 88 (1997)),police officers observed the defendant littering on the sidewalk. When an officer informed the defendant that he would receive a summons, the defendant ignored the officer's demand for identification, a prerequisite to the summons process, and replied “go f* *k yourself” (Offen, 96 Misc.2d at 148, 149). The defendant then fled into a store, locked the door, and refused to allow the officers to enter (id. at 149). [highlight]The court dismissed the obstructing governmental administration charge, holding that the defendant's refusal to provide identification and his subsequent refusal to open the door to the officers was not a crime...[/highlight]
