You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ANONYMOUS TIP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE VEHICLE PURSUED AND STOPPED BY THE POLICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Peopled failed to demonstrate the arresting officers had probable cause to pursue and stop the vehicle form which defendant attempted to flee. The officers were observing the vehicle because of an anonymous tip:

The United States Supreme Court has “recognized . . . [that] there are situations in which an anonymous tip, sufficiently corroborated, exhibits ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make [an] investigatory stop’ ” … . However, “[s]ince an anonymous tip ‘seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity,’ it can only give rise to reasonable suspicion if accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability” … . The anonymous tip must be reliable, not only “in its assertion of illegality,” but also “in its tendency to identify a determinate person” … . …

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that police officers were dispatched based on an anonymous tip that defendant was in a specific vehicle at a specific location. However, when police responded to the area, neither defendant nor the vehicle was present. Over 3½ hours later, officers observed the vehicle and two individuals inside. The only officer to testify at the suppression hearing admitted that he could not determine whether the occupants of the vehicle were male or female, let alone whether one of them was defendant. Further, the vehicle was not registered to defendant. Nevertheless, the officers activated their emergency lights and attempted to stop the vehicle. People v Ponce, 2022 NY Slip Op 01706, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: An anonymous tip can provide probable cause for a street stop if accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability, both as to illegality and the identity of the person. Here the People did not demonstrate the anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable.

 

,

PURSUANT TO A US SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION, DEFENDANT HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) WARRANT, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision and remitting the matter, determined that, based upon a US Supreme Court decision which came down after defendant’s conviction, defendant has standing to challenge the cell site location information (CSLI) warrant:

We agree with defendant … that he has standing to challenge the CSLI search warrant. At the time of the court’s decision, controlling caselaw in this Department held that the acquisition of CSLI was not a search under the State or Federal Constitution because a defendant’s use of a phone “constituted a voluntary disclosure of his [or her] general location to [the] service provider, and a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties” … . Following defendant’s conviction, the United States Supreme Court decided Carpenter v United States, 138 S Ct 2206, 2217 [2018]), which held that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his [or her] physical movements as captured through CSLI” … . As a result of the Carpenter decision, defendant is entitled to a determination on the merits regarding his challenges to the CSLI search warrant. People v Ozkaynak, 2022 NY Slip Op 01700, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: The US Supreme Court ruling that defendants have standing to challenge a cell site location information (CDLI) warrant came down after defendant’s conviction in this case. The matter was remitted for a determination of defendant’s suppression motion.

 

, ,

A DETECTIVE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; TESTIMONY ABOUT THE “BLINDED” PHOTO ARRAY IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED; THE DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A WITNESS’S CRIMINAL HISTORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED; ANY ERRORS DEEMED HARMLESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, finding any evidentiary errors harmless, determined: (1) a detective was properly allowed to identify the defendant in a surveillance video because the People demonstrated the detective had prior contacts with the defendant; (2) testimony about the “blinded” photo identification procedure was properly allowed; and (3) the defense cross-examination about a witness’s criminal history should not have been curtailed by the judge:

We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the challenged testimony because the People presented evidence establishing that the police detective was familiar with defendant based on several prior contacts with defendant over the course of several years. Thus, there “was some basis for concluding that the [police detective] was more likely to identify defendant correctly than was the jury” … . …

Testimony about a photo array procedure, and the array itself, may be admitted where, inter alia, the procedure is ” ‘blinded,’ ” that is, where the person administering the array procedure does not know the suspect’s position in the array (CPL 60.25 [1] [c] [ii]; see CPL 60.30). Here, although the array viewed by the witness was created by the police detective who administered the procedure, the specific procedure conducted was nevertheless blind because the police detective placed three different arrays in envelopes, which he shuffled before having the witness pick one. This procedure is sufficient, in our view, to ensure that, at the time the witness was viewing the array, the police detective did not know the position of defendant in that array … . …

“[C]urtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony” … . … [W]e conclude that the court erred in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a witness’s prior drug conviction that occurred two months before the shooting at issue here, inasmuch as those facts bore on the witness’s credibility and were not remote or cumulative … . People v Griffin, 2022 NY Slip Op 01698, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: Because the detective had prior contact with the defendant, the detective was properly allowed to identify defendant in a surveillance video.

Practice Point: Testimony about the “blinded” photo array identification procedure was properly allowed.

Practice Point: The defense cross-examination about the witness’s criminal history should not have been curtailed.

 

RESTITUTION IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP FOR LOST WAGES WAS IMPROPERLY AWARDED BECAUSE “LOST WAGES” DOES NOT FIT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CAP RESTRICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying County Court, determined the restitution amount which exceeded the statutory cap did not fit into any of the statutory exceptions to the cap restriction. The victim was improperly awarded an amount for lost wages:

… [T]he court erred in imposing restitution and reparation in excess of the statutory cap for the second victim’s past lost earnings because, under the plain meaning of the statute, that form of loss does not fall within the exception to the statutory cap pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (5) (b) … . In particular, contrary to the court’s determination, inasmuch as past lost earnings are wages, salary, or other income that the second victim could have, but did not, earn (see Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], lost earnings), the excess amount ordered as restitution and reparation for that loss does not constitute reimbursement for “the return of the [second] victim’s property” or equivalent thereof (§ 60.27 [5] [b] …). People v Witherow, 2022 NY Slip Op 01691, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: Restitution for lost wages was improperly awarded because “lost wages” does not fit any of the statutory exceptions to the restitution-cap restriction.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, ASSESSED 12 POINTS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY; DEFENDANT ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, without prior notice to the defendant, assessed 12 points for failure to accept responsibility in this SORA risk level proceeding. The Fourth Department noted defendant pled guilty to statutory rape. Although defendant stated he thought the 16-year-old victim was 18, the guilty plea was an adequate acceptance of responsibility:

… [I]t is well established that ” ‘[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment’ ” … . As a result, “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond” … . …

… [T]he court erred in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 12, for failure to accept responsibility, given that he pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt … . …

… [D]efendant was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to argue against the override [recommended by the board] or in favor of a downward departure … . People v Ritchie, 2022 NY Slip Op 01635, Fourth Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: In a SORA risk assessment proceeding, the judge cannot, sua sponte, without notice to the defendant, assess points in a category not recommended by the board.

Practice Point: In a SORA risk assessment proceeding, where a defendant has pled guilty, an assessment of 12 points for failure to accept responsibility is not warranted.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) County Court determine the proof submitted by the People did not support the application for an upward departure in this SORA risk assessment proceeding:

… County Court erred in granting the People’s application for an upward departure. The People failed to prove the facts in support of their proffered aggravating factor, including that the defendant engaged in unprotected sexual conduct with the victim, by clear and convincing evidence … . People v Paterno, 2022 NY Slip Op 01470, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Any application by the People for an upward departure in a SORA risk assessment proceeding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Here the People’s upward departure application alleged defendant had unprotected sex with the 15-year-old victim. The appellate court determined the allegation was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

 

SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS RE: WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department determined Supreme Court did not make the required findings re: whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status and remitted the matter:

CPL 720.20(1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … . With regard to the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree …, which, contrary to the defendant’s contention, is an armed felony (see CPL 1.20[41]; Penal Law §§ 70.02[1][b]; 265.03[3] …), the People concede that the Supreme Court improperly failed to determine on the record whether the defendant was an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.10[2], [3]) and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender treatment … . With regard to the defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest …, the defendant contends, and the People concede, that the court also failed to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20[1]). The parties are correct that the record does not demonstrate that the court made either of these required determinations … . People v Hunter, 2022 NY Slip Op 01320, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S CLOTHES BY A DETECTIVE AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE DEFENDANT WAS BEING TREATED FOR A GUNSHOT WOUND; THE CLOTHES AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CLOTHES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s clothes seized at the hospital where defendant was being treated for a gunshot wound should have been suppressed. The error was deemed harmless however:

The defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his clothing, and the fact that the police perceived the defendant as a victim rather than a suspect at the time his clothing was seized did not strip the defendant of his Fourth Amendment protection … . Moreover, the People failed to establish that the testifying detective knew that the clothes would have covered the part of the defendant’s body where he was shot, as the detective admitted that he did not know what type of clothing was in the bag that was seized … . The People also failed to establish any exigent circumstances to justify seizure of the clothing, as they provided no evidence that the clothing was in danger of being removed or destroyed … . Accordingly, the seizure of the defendant’s clothing at the hospital was illegal, and the DNA evidence obtained from the items seized should not have been admitted into evidence at trial … . People v Gough, 2022 NY Slip Op 01317, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED; IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL AND APPEAL WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no justification for the “consent-to-search” probation condition. Defendant stole a cab driver’s cell phone and pled guilty to attempted assault. The court noted it was not necessary to preserve the error for appeal and appeal was not prohibited by the waiver of appeal:

The probation department [requested] that as a condition of probation, the defendant be required to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm or other weapon, or other contraband found (Condition No. 28). At sentencing, the Supreme Court imposed the consent to search condition of probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that this condition of his probation was improperly imposed.

The defendant correctly argues, and the People do not dispute, that this issue was not required to be preserved for appellate review, and that appellate review is not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal … .

… [T]he defendant was a first-time offender and was not armed with a weapon at the time he committed the offense. While the defendant told the probation department that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense, he was not assessed as being in need of alcohol or substance abuse treatment. Under the circumstances, the consent to search condition of probation was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law abiding life … . People v Dranchuk, 2022 NY Slip Op 01312, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

A SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF A DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE; THEREFORE THE CERTIFICATION CANNOT BE SET ASIDE PURSUANT TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s certification as a sex offender was not part of his sentence. Therefore the certification could not be set aside pursuant to CPL 440.20:

Prior to the defendant’s release from prison, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his certification as a sex offender on the ground that his certification was unlawful because the crime he was convicted of was not a sex offense or a sexually violent offense under Correction Law § 168-a. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion and set aside so much of the sentence as certified the defendant as a sex offender and required him to pay a sex offender registration fee. The court then resentenced the defendant to the originally-imposed term of imprisonment and post-release supervision. The People appeal.

While a defendant’s certification as a sex offender under SORA is part of the judgment of conviction … , “SORA certification is not part of a sentence” … . Thus, the relief sought by the defendant was not available to him under CPL 440.20(1), which only authorizes a motion to set aside a sentence … . People v David, 2022 NY Slip Op 01310, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy