Sibro Vs New York Case Summary

The Case of Sibron v. The State of New York Martin, a New York police officer on patrol, in 1967, observed Sibron having conversations with multiple known drug addicts ("Sibron v. New York - ACLU Pros & Cons - ProCon.org," 2009). Watching Sibron go into a restaurant, the officer approached Sibron inside and ordered him to come outside. The officer told Sibron “You know what I am after.” Sibron reached into his pocket and the officer simultaneously reached in after him, pulling up multiple little bags containing heroine ("Sibron v. New York - ACLU Pros & Cons - ProCon.org," 2009). After being charged with unlawful possession of heroin in 1967, the trial court denied Sibron’s motion to suppress the evidence, saying that it was an unlawful stop and frisk and a violation of his fourth amendment rights ("Sibron v. New York - ACLU Pros & Cons - ProCon.org," 2009). Sibron plead guilty and served time before his case went to the intermediate state

“A stop involves only a temporary interference with a person’s liberty” ("Stop and Frisk," n.d.). If the officer finds anything on the person during the frisk, then they officer can make an arrest, otherwise, the person is released ("Stop and Frisk," n.d.). The New York “stop and frisk” law says “police officer may stop any person... in a public place whom he reasonably suspects are committing crimes and may demand… his name, address and an explanation of his actions," and when the officer "suspects that he is in danger…he may search such person for a dangerous weapon" ("Stop and Frisk," n.d.). In this case, Officer Martin, used the fact of knowing Sibron was associating himself with narcotic addicts as probable cause and reasonable suspicion; but it is not justifiable under the Fourth