In People v. DeBour, 40 NY2d 210 (1976) the Court of Appeals articulated its well-known four-tier test for assessing street encounters initiated by the police. The first level allows the police to request information from a civilian so long as there exists an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality, for doing so. The second level, the common-law right of inquiry, is more intrusive and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. The third level permits the police to forcibly stop and detain a civilian if there exists a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. The fourth level allows the police to arrest a civilian if there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a criminal offense. The Court was confronted with "the fundamental issue of whether or not a police officer, in the absence of any concrete indication of criminality, may approach a private citizen on the street for the purpose of requesting information" [People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 213]. In DeBour, a Tactical Patrol Force officer, while walking his beat at 12:15 A.M, in an area in Brooklyn "known for its high incidence of drug activity", took notice of someone (DeBour), who had been walking in the opposite direction but on the same side of the street. When DeBour crossed to the other side of the street as he approached the officer and his partner, the officers suspecting narcotics, then also crossed and asked DeBour what he was doing in the neighborhood. When he answered "clearly but nervously" he was also asked for identification which he could not produce. During the encounter, when one of the officers noticed a slight waist high bulge in DeBour's jacket, DeBour was asked to unzip his jacket. When DeBour complied, a revolver was observed and removed, and DeBour was arrested for possession of a weapon. Subsequent to denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of the search and seizure he ultimately pled guilty to possession of the weapon. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court citing principles enunciated in a prior landmark decision ( People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 324 N.E.2d 872, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509 [1975]), observed that "whether or not a particular search or seizure is to be considered reasonable requires a weighing of the government's interest against the encroachment involved with respect to an individual's right to privacy and personal security; (and) thus, [the court] must first consider whether or not the police action was justified in its inception and secondly whether or not that action was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible". (People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d supra at 215). The Court of Appeals established the governing standard for evaluating the propriety of police-initiated encounters with civilians. The court categorized police intrusions into four levels. The least intrusive of those levels was described as a "request for information." The court explained that a police officer is entitled to approach a civilian and ask basic, nonthreatening questions, " . . . when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality." (DeBour, supra at 223.) The Court of Appeals upheld the officer's initial right to inquire, as well as the ultimate seizure of the weapon; and thus upheld the denial of the motion to suppress and sustained DeBour's conviction. In arriving at each conclusion the court provided a detailed step by step explanation of the circumstances by which each case was distinguished. In DeBour the seizure was upheld because the Court found, among other things, that the defendant was "legitimately approached" in that the encounter occurred after midnight in an area known for its high incidence of drug activity and the "attendant circumstances were sufficient to arouse the officers interest." In further support of the behavior of the Officers, it was noted that the "the encounter ... was devoid of harassment or intimidation ... was brief lasting only a few minutes and the questions were circumscribed in scope to the officers' task as foot patrolmen". The Court added significantly that "the encounter did not subject DeBour to a loss of dignity for where the police degrade and humiliate their behavior is to be condemned." The Court explained that the reasonableness of any police conduct must be measured by the accompanying suspicion of criminal activity. The court delineated four levels of increasing police intrusiveness when engaging citizens. The first level mandates that with virtually no suspicion of criminal activity at all the police may only ask the most elementary, non-invasive questions. By contrast, where the police have probable cause that a crime has been committed by the individual they may effectuate an arrest.