Articles Posted in GUN CRIMES

An individual charged and convicted upon a guilty plea of a New York weapons offense recently appealed his conviction based on a constitutional violation of his rights. The accused argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence that his parole officer recovered during searching the man’s home. He argued that the search was precipitated on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. Moreover, he contended that the officers did not establish the tip’s source of knowledge or reliability.

According to the record, the appellant’s parole officer explained that he received a call through the Department of Probation that the appellant may have a firearm. The parole officer then searched the appellant’s residence and discovered a firearm wrapped in plastic underneath clothes in a closet. The court refused to review the appellant’s contention on appeal, reasoning that the accused did not raise it before the court. However, a dissenting judge explained that, in his view, the warrantless search was unlawful because it rested solely on an anonymous tip from an unidentified person.

New York is one of the few states that retain the Aguilar-Spinelli test to determine the validity of a warrantless arrest stemming from an anonymous tip or confidential informant. Under this test, law enforcement must provide the magistrate signing the warrant with reasons to support the finding that the informant is reliable and of some of the circumstances that the informant relied upon. Further, after arraignment, law enforcement must establish facts that show the anonymous tipster is reliable and credible and establish the circumstances relied upon by the tipster. Despite this test, there is limited guidance on when a confidential informant or anonymous tipster should be deemed “reliable.” Lower courts rarely find anonymous tipsters reliable in the absence of predictive information.

As we reported in our blog on March 31, 2021, we won a five year battle to get a New York gun charge dismissed based upon an illegal search.  State and federal law as well as the US Constitution provide that all citizens enjoy the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Historically, this meant that police officers needed to obtain a warrant before they conducted any type of search. However, the practicalities of life in the 20th century required the court to create specific exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of the most important exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant pertains to New York traffic stops.

Over the years, courts have held that automobile stops present certain facts that make it impractical for law enforcement to obtain a warrant. For example, vehicles are mobile, may contain dangerous weapons, and occupants are obscured from police view. Thus, police officers do not need to get a warrant before searching a car in many cases. However, just because they don’t need a warrant doesn’t mean they can search a car for any reason.

Generally, police need to provide justification for any warrantless search. In the case of traffic stops, this requires the officer have probable cause to suspect that the driver or one of the vehicle’s occupants is involved in criminal conduct. Courts rely on several factors when assessing whether an officer had probable cause to search a car including, the occupants’ behavior, any immediately visible evidence of wrongdoing, and whether the traffic stop occurred in a “high crime” area.

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York gun case involving what the prosecution called a valid inventory search. However, the court rejected the prosecution’s characterization of the police officers’ search of the defendant’s vehicle as an inventory search, suppressing the evidence found in the defendant’s car.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was pulled over by police for an unrelated violation. As the defendant pulled over, he parked his car on the corner. There was no indication that he illegally parked his car or that there was a limit on how long the defendant’s car was allowed to remain parked at the location.

However, the arresting officers decided to transport the defendant’s vehicle to the police station because they believed it was used in the commission of a crime. When the vehicle arrived at the police station, officers searched the car, finding a gun. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Continue reading

Recently, a state appellate court released an opinion in a New York gun case requiring the court to determine if the officers’ search of the defendant’s car, which was parked outside his home, was within the scope of the search warrant. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant’s car was not covered by the search warrant and ordered the suppression of all evidence obtained from the vehicle.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, police officers were investigating the defendant for selling heroin from his home. Officers watched on several occasions as the defendant and another man would walk out of the defendant’s home, meet up with someone who pulled up in a car, and exchange items for money. The officers also arranged a controlled buy.

Taking the information they gathered during their investigation, the officers obtained a search warrant. Specifically, the warrant affidavit claimed that there was probable cause to search the defendant and his home. However, when officers arrived to execute the warrant, they also searched his car, finding a loaded gun and other drug-related evidence.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York firearms case, reversing the lower court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress. The case required the court to determine whether the police officers’ actions leading to the defendant’s tossing of the gun were justified.

The Facts of the Case

According to the appellate court’s recitation of the fact, police officers received a call describing a group of men, two of whom had “guns out.” The 911 caller told the dispatcher one of the men had on a tan-and-black coat, and another a black coat.

Officers responded to the scene to find two groups of men walking in opposite directions. One officer stopped a man in a tan-and-black coat, searched him, and found nothing. Officers then located the defendant, who was wearing a black coat. One officer followed the defendant, relaying his location over police radio.

Continue reading