Incident

Incident Description

On May 3, 2014 at around 4:30 P.M., Buffalo Police Housing Unit Officer Craig Macy was conducting a “vertical foot patrol” at 305 Perry Sweep in response to “general resident complaints” when he saw Raymon Richardson exit an elevator in the building. Without having any reason to suspect Mr. Richardson of trespass or wrongdoing, Macy approached Mr. Richardson and asked him whether he lived in the housing project. Mr. Richardson informed Macy that he did not live there.

Macy continued to press Mr. Richardson with further questions, but Mr. Richardson replied by stating that he would not respond because “this was harassment.” At that point, Macy informed Mr. Richardson that because he said that he did not live there, he was no longer free to leave and arrested him and took him into custody at the BPD Housing Unit headquarters.

After an hour, Mr. Richardson informed the officers that his children may be home alone. Buffalo police officers then accompanied Mr. Richardson to his home, saw that his two children were indeed alone, and subsequently charged him with Endangering the Welfare of a Child and two counts of Trespass.

Outcome

During criminal proceedings, the Judge dismissed Mr. Richardson’s charges on the basis that Buffalo Police Officer Craig Macy violated Mr. Richardson’s Fourth Amendment rights. Although the court found that Macy’s initial inquiry was constitutional, Judge Martoche found his secondary more accusatory questioning and subsequent detention was unconstitutional because Mr. Richardson’s conduct did not present the “individualized” circumstances necessary to show “that criminal activity was afoot.”

The Judge found that the fact that Mr. Richardson did not live in the high rise and that he decided to stop answering Macy’s questions was insufficient for an investigatory detention and arrest. In dismissing the charges based on Buffalo police department’s illegally obtained evidence, the court underscored “the fact that an encounter occuring in a high crime vicinity, without more, has not passed De Bour and Hollman scrutiny” for even the lowest-level of inquiry. The Court made clear that “simply put, police encounters with civilian subjects must be proportionate to the concerns raised by the subject’s observed conduct.”