| Matter of Michael F. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03728 [84 AD3d 468] |
| May 5, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Michael F., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Druker of counsel), forpresentment agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or aboutApril 8, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-findingdetermination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 24months, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, appellant's suppressionmotion granted, and the petition dismissed.
Other than stating that it was late at night (a night that happened to be New Year's Eve) andthat the neighborhood was a high-crime area, the testifying officer did not provide any basis forthe police to stop their car and approach a group of young men, including appellant, that wascongregating on a street corner. These circumstances did not provide an objective credible reasonfor a level one request for information (see generally People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521[2001]; People v Mobley, 48 AD3d374 [2008]). When two uniformed officers got out of the marked car and approachedappellant, he turned around, walked quickly away and looked back several times over the courseof two minutes. This did not justify the subsequent level one encounter, in which the testifyingofficer followed appellant in his police car, stopped the car, asked appellant to stop and askedhim what he was doing. Appellant's conduct was ambiguous, and, in the circumstancespresented, was no more than an exercise of his "right to be let alone" in response to the initialapproach of the other officers, rather than flight (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 500-501 [2006]; People vHolmes, 81 NY2d 1056 [1993]; People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583 [1980]). While theofficer subsequently made observations that led to the recovery of a loaded revolver fromappellant's jacket, those observations were the result of the unauthorized [*2]encounter. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, DeGrasseand RomÁn, JJ.