Also known as: detentions for investigation · detention for investigations · investigative detention · investigatory detention
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A brief seizure of a person by law enforcement for the purpose of investigating possible criminal activity. Officers may conduct such a detention when they possess reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot. Transporting the person to a station house for questioning converts the encounter into the functional equivalent of an arrest that requires probable cause.
Darrell Duncan was questioned at his workplace about possible sabotage. Officers directed him into a squad car and transported him to the station for fingerprinting and several hours of interrogation based only on a supervisor's report of an argument over overtime. The seizure became the functional equivalent of an arrest unsupported by probable cause.
Denise Donovan lingered near a bank ATM after closing, repeatedly stepping forward while watching customers and patting her waistband. An officer approached and detained her briefly for investigation based on those observations. The limited on-scene stop was justified by reasonable suspicion and did not require probable cause.
Plaintiffs David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht bring this putative class action against the City of New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and named and unnamed New York City Police Officers, alleging that defendants have implemented and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of unconstitutional stops and frisks by the NYPD on the basis of race and national origin. The named plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for themselves while all plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class. The litigation occurs against a backdrop of increased NYPD stop and frisk activity since the mid-1990s, reaching almost 600,000 stops per year, with documented racial disparities in who is stopped, and follows a prior lawsuit, Daniels v. City of New York, that settled in 2003 and required the NYPD to adopt a Racial Profiling Policy, revise the UF250 form, and conduct regular audits. Plaintiffs contend that these measures have been inadequate and that the City has constructively acquiesced in widespread constitutional violations through insufficient training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline, including the imposition of quotas. On February 27, 2008, plaintiff David Floyd was walking near his Bronx home at 1359 Beach Avenue when he and a basement tenant were stopped by Officers Joyce, Hernandez, and Sergeant Kelly, who suspected the men of burglary based on a midday pattern in the neighborhood, observations of them manipulating a lock, and one man holding a large key ring. Floyd was frisked and his pockets were searched while Officer Joyce completed a UF250 form indicating furtive movements and time of day corresponding to criminal activity but recording no search. On either June 6 or June 9, 2008, plaintiff David Ourlicht was sitting on a bench outside a Harlem housing complex with other African-American men when uniformed officers arrived in a marked police van, drew their weapons, ordered everyone to the ground, patted them down, searched their pockets, and requested identification, claiming reports of a gun in the area, though no evidence of such a gun report was produced in the litigation. Ourlicht participated in photo array procedures but could not conclusively identify the specific officers involved, though he identified the van number assigned to the local precinct command. The parties have submitted extensive evidence regarding NYPD training at the Police Academy and post-Academy, QAD audits using Worksheets 802, 802A, and 803, command self-inspections, and CompStat reviews, with plaintiffs pointing to officer testimony denying receipt of training on reasonable suspicion, racial profiling, or SQF procedures, audio recordings of roll calls directing quota numbers, a 2006 labor arbitration finding quotas in one precinct, and the Fagan Report's statistical analysis showing racial disparities and a percentage of stops lacking legal justification. Defendants rely on the RAND Report's findings of smaller disparities after benchmarking and evidence of written policies and procedures. Defendants moved for summary judgment on Floyd's and Ourlicht's claims arising from the specific incidents as well as on the Monell claims against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Commissioner Kelly. The motion was decided by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on August 31, 2011.
View caseReasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot. Courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances and allow officers to draw on training and experience even when individual facts appear innocent.
Supporting sources
When officers take the person into custody and transport them to a station house for questioning or fingerprinting. Such a seizure is the functional equivalent of an arrest and requires probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion.
Supporting sources
Yes. The totality of the circumstances test permits officers to consider multiple factors that are each consistent with innocence when those factors together create a particularized and objective basis to suspect criminal activity.
Supporting sources
No. An anonymous tip must bear sufficient indicia of reliability, such as accurate predictions of future conduct demonstrating inside knowledge, before it can contribute to reasonable suspicion.
Supporting sources