Facts of The Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was stopped by police officers one evening in September 2020. On the night of the incident, officers noticed the defendant because they had recently received a call while patrolling the area telling them to search for a Black male with a white t-shirt and a black backpack. Allegedly, pedestrians had seen a person fitting this description shooting a gun at approximately 10:30pm that same night.

When the officers arrived at the street corner where they had been summoned, they noticed several Black men, but only one Black man with both a white t-shirt and a black backpack. They stopped the man, who later became the defendant in this case. The officers removed the defendant’s backpack, opened it, looked inside, and found a handgun that could have been used in the shooting that had happened a few minutes prior. The officers then proceeded to handcuff the defendant and take him into custody.

The Decision

At trial, the defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, the defendant argued that the handgun should not have been used as evidence against him at court: it was unreasonable for the officers to stop him and look in his bag, which was his private property and was not open for the officers to search.

The court disagreed with the defendant, deciding that it was, in fact, reasonable for the officers to stop him on the sidewalk and search his backpack. The court focused on two parts of the stop to conclude that the officers’ actions were reasonable. First, the court discussed the stop itself. It was fine for the officers to choose the defendant as the person to stop because his clothing and backpack perfectly matched the description of the shooter. He was the only person in the immediate vicinity who matched the description, and because of this, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant might be in possession of a gun.

Second, the court focused on the officers’ search of the backpack, relying on “safety considerations” to determine that it was legal for the officers to look in the bag. It was reasonable for the officers to fear for the safety of themselves and of the people around them; because of this fear, the search of the backpack was valid.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the original verdict and denied the defendant’s appeal.

Are You Facing Gun Charges in New York?

If you have been charged with illegal possession of a firearm in New York, it is important that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side. At the Law Office of Mark A. Siesel, we are committed to looking at all of the evidence in your case to determine the full scope of legal options at your disposal. As a team, we have litigated cases in state and federal courts in New York since 1986; our commitment to zealously defending our clients has not wavered, and we are ready to amplify your voice. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at (914) 428-7386.

One night in June 2017, officers received a call for a domestic disturbance at the defendant’s home. Shortly thereafter, the officers caught sight of the defendant on the second floor of his home. They watched him open his window and throw a black backpack into the window of a building next door. He then exited the home onto the porch to talk to the police officers. The defendant told them that he had a gun several times.

Then, the defendant took out a gray-colored object. As he did, officers shot him twice. While he was being taken to the hospital, officers found the backpack, opened it up, and searched its contents. Inside they found a rifle and a smaller bag containing ammunition. Later, when interviewed by a detective, the defendant admitted he threw a black backpack out the window. He maintained, however, the backpack only had marijuana in it – he denied any existence of a rifle or of ammunition. The defendant was later convicted of criminal possession of a weapon, as well as several domestic violence offenses.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving his car when he rolled through a stop sign and was stopped by a police officer. The officer asked to see the defendant’s driver’s license, registration, and insurance; as he pulled out these items, the officer noticed a can of pepper spray in the defendant’s glove compartment. The officer also noticed during the stop that the defendant’s car matched the make, color, and partial license plate number of a car that had been involved in robberies in the same area the previous evening. The officer also remembered that during these robberies, one of the victims was pepper-sprayed in the eyes.

Given the circumstances, the officer arrested the defendant for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, inferring from what he noticed during the stop that the defendant was a suspect for the crime. After the arrest, the defendant made incriminating statements that were later used against him in court. After trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts of robbery in the second degree as well as robbery in the third degree.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him at the traffic stop in the first place. Because the pepper spray and model of his car did not serve as sufficient evidence for an arrest, the defendant argued that any statements he made during the traffic stop should be excluded from court. If the initial arrest was unreasonable, said the defendant, the use of any statements that occurred thereafter was also unreasonable.

The court disagreed. While it is true, said the court, that any statements made after an illegal arrest would normally be excluded from the prosecution’s case, the statements in this scenario followed a stop that was both legal and justified. The court announced that the pepper spray and car gave the officer enough reason to arrest the defendant, and thus that the defendant’s subsequent statements were fair game. What’s more, said the court, the defendant made the incriminating statements only after voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights. Because the defendant had heard about his right to be silent and had chosen not to exercise it, the statements he made were acceptable for the prosecution to use.

Have You Been Charged with Robbery in New York?

For many defendants, a New York robbery charge can feel like the end of the road. At The Law Office of Mark A. Siesel, we are prepared with possible defenses that can help you fight your case with as much vigor as possible. We are a team of experienced, zealous advocates who are familiar with the legal landscape in New York and who are ready to stand by your side. To schedule your consultation, give us a call at (914) 428-7386.

The Case

As stated in the opinion, officers in Syracuse were patrolling a high-crime area in August 2017 when they noticed a car that was parked illegally. The officers walked up to the vehicle and saw three occupants – the defendant in the driver’s seat and two other passengers. As soon as the officers approached the car, the officers smelled a “really strong chemical odor” that they recognized as PCP.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, law enforcement personnel were made aware that the defendant would be driving through a certain location one night to transport drugs. New York State Troopers were directed to stop and search the particular vehicle if they saw it, and that night, the State Troopers stopped the vehicle on the highway, arrested the defendant and her co-defendant, and recovered a large quantity of cocaine from the vehicle. The State Troopers did not have a warrant to stop and search the vehicle. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance and subsequently filed a motion to suppress the cocaine that had been recovered from her vehicle. The lower court denied the motion and the defendant appealed.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the county court should have granted the motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered from the vehicle because the State failed to sustain their burden of proof that sufficiently established a valid reason for stopping the vehicle or a valid reason for searching it. The appellate court agreed, holding that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to rely on fellow officer exception to justify the vehicle stop. At a suppression hearing, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the officer who imparted information had probable cause to act and thus had either directly participated in the transaction or observed it. Here, an unidentified member of the county drug task force advised a trooper about the vehicle, and it was passed on to other troopers to conduct the stop but there was no information at the suppression hearing indicating how the county drug task force member learned there were drugs in the vehicle.

The troopers alleged that they stopped the vehicle after following it for one mile and observed traffic infractions including speeding and failing to stay in a single lane. Also, the trooper issued traffic tickets for the infraction, leading the court to find that the State had probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had been committed and thus the stop of the vehicle was lawful, even though it was primarily motivated by a desire to investigate the drugs in the vehicle., Additionally, the search of the vehicle was found to be unconstitutional and did not fall under the inventory search exception because there was no warrant, the prosecution failed to produce evidence that showed the search was done properly in compliance with established procedures, and the primary purpose of the search was not to inventory or to safeguard the property located in the vehicle. Thus, the court reversed the lower court’s judgment against the defendant and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence

Have You Been Arrested for a New York Drug Crime?

If a police officer recently arrested you after searching your vehicle, you may be able to suppress any evidence they gathered by filing a motion to suppress. The New York criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Mark A. Siesel aggressively represent their clients who face all types of serious offenses, including New York drug crimes, gun possession offenses, and more. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call (914) 428-7386 today. You can also reach us through our online form.

The court’s opinion is brief; however, the case arose after the defendant was arrested on 17 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree. While the facts surrounding the defendant’s arrest were not provided, the defendant did not contest their arrest. Instead, the defendant argued that the arresting officer exceeded the scope of a search incident to her arrest.

Apparently, the officer found an envelope in the defendant’s pocket at the time of her arrest. The officer then “peeked” inside the envelope to find evidence that the prosecution intended to use against her at trial. The testimony was not clear whether the envelope was partially open. However, to the court, it didn’t matter.

Based on a physical description, police stopped and questioned the accused; after identifying himself, police arrested him. The police then executed a search warrant and recovered the victim’s credit card and the defendant’s benefits card. On a motion, the defendant moved to suppress his statement to police, controvert the search warrant and suppress the physical evidence recovered from the home.

Warrantless searches are lawful if police have obtained voluntary consent from a party who possesses authority and control over the property or premises at issue. A party can establish consent by words and conduct. In this case, the court found that the People met their burden by establishing that the defendant’s cousin had requisite control over the home and provided police with authority to enter the premises. The People also cited the cousin’s testimony where he stated that he intended to help the police. In line with that finding, the court found that the cell phone seizure was lawful because it was in plain view.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York drug possession case involving the concept of forced abandonment. Under the state and federal constitutions, police officers must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify a search of a person or their belongings. In situations where a defendant discards an item, that is typically not seen as a “search.” Thus, situations that involve a defendant who voluntarily tosses items may not implicate their constitutional protections, because no “search” was conducted.

However, if a defendant discards an item in response to a police officer’s illegal attempt to stop them, the object may be suppressible under the theory of forced abandonment. Forced abandonment is a legal term used to describe a situation where a defendant discards evidence in response to illegal police activity, often during a police foot pursuit. The idea behind the doctrine is that police officers “seize” a defendant when they initiate the stop. If officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion at that point, the evidence is suppressible—regardless of whether the defendant keeps it on them or tosses it away.

In most cases, New York criminal defendants appeal their cases based on more than one issue. Appeals may stem from improper police investigations, incorrect legal decisions, or other constitutional claims. Multiple appeal issues often present complicated statutory and procedural issues. In these cases, courts may wholly affirm the trial court’s ruling, partially affirm, or entirely overturn the lower court’s ruling.

For instance, a New York criminal defendant recently appealed a judgment from a trial court where he was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, three counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, attempted assault, and seven counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The case arose from incidents over a two-month span where two men were killed, and three others suffered injuries. The court affirmed the majority of the trial court’s ruling but partially agreed with the defendant’s assertions regarding the admissibility of his statements to the police.

The Facts of the Case

The court’s recitation of the facts giving rise to the case was brief. However, it appears that the defendant was arrested after he had parked his car “on the corner.” The court’s opinion does not explain what the initial arrest was for. However, after the defendant was arrested, police officers decided to impound the defendant’s vehicle. Before impounding the vehicle, police searched the car, finding a weapon.