You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Officer Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion Defendant Posed a Danger—Pat-Down Search Triggered by a Bulge In Defendant’s Waistband Was Not Justified Under the DeBour Test

The Second Department determined the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a threat to his safety when he patted defendant down and retrieved a weapon from defendant’s waistband.  Defendant, who was first observed merely standing and smoking a cigarette, had walked away from the police, turned his back to them and made a motion as if shoving something into his front waistband.  The officer, seeing the bulge in defendant’s waistband, immediately patted the defendant down:

In People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210), the Court of Appeals established a “graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police” … . The first level permits a police officer to request information from an individual, and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality … . The second level, known as the “common-law right of inquiry,” requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion short of a forcible seizure … . The third level permits a seizure, meaning that a police officer may forcibly stop and detain an individual, based upon a reasonable suspicion that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a crime … . Finally, the fourth level authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony or misdemeanor … .

Here, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the gun and his statements should have been granted. Assuming that Officer Castillo was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry, he lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant posed a threat to his safety when he conducted a pat-down search of the bulge in his waistband … . The police were not responding to a report of a crime involving a weapon and, at most, suspected the defendant of being involved in the burglary of an abandoned house … . In addition, “[a]n unidentifiable bulge which is readily susceptible of an innocent as well as a guilty explanation’ is not sufficient to justify a pat-down search” … . The waistband bulge as described by Officer Castillo only permitted him to ask the defendant if he was carrying a weapon based on a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot … . Moreover, Officer Castillo did not testify that the defendant, upon turning to face the officers, reached for or had his hand on the bulge, or made any threatening or menacing gesture … . Under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Castillo was not justified in searching the defendant’s waistband bulge as a minimally intrusive self-protective measure. Accordingly, the hearing court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the physical evidence and his subsequent statements to law enforcement officials. Since, in the absence of the suppressed evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Harris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08351, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Criteria for Presentation of Defense Expert Re: the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

In finding that the defendant’s request to present expert evidence on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony was properly denied, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

Where a case “turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to exclude expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications if that testimony is (1) relevant to the witness’s identification of defendant, (2) based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, (3) proffered by a qualified expert and (4) on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror” … . Here, however, there was sufficient corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crimes to obviate the need for expert testimony * * *.  People v Granger, 2014 NY Slip Op 08349, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered

The Second Department determined the trial judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial when defense counsel could not proceed because of a conflict and new counsel needed a two-month adjournment.  Because the mistrial, granted over defendant’s objection, was “manifestly necessary” the double jeopardy prohibition of a second trial was not triggered:

The double jeopardy clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions for the same offense . “In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches, and the defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal'” … .

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . “Manifest necessity” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'” … . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” …  . Matter of Roey v Lopresto, 2014 NY Slip Op 08340, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Retroactive Application of New Regulations Affecting the Revocation of Driver’s Licenses for Alcohol- and Drug-Related Convictions or Incidents Okay—No Vested Right Re: License to Drive

The Third Department determined the new regulations concerning the effect of alcohol- or drug-related convictions or incidents can be applied retroactively because they do not affect a vested right:

“Retroactive statutes are those which impair vested rights or alter past transactions or considerations” … . Here, however, petitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by respondent under her discretionary powers (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 510 [c]; 1192 [2]…). Thus, respondent remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing — i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions (see NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 46…). Furthermore, inasmuch as the revised regulations operated only to nominally change the effect of petitioner’s past acts on his future eligibility to obtain a driver’s license and was not imposed as punishment but, rather, to promote public safety, respondent’s application of 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) was proper under these circumstances (see … State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [6]). Matter of Scism v Fiala, 2014 NY Slip Op 08283, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Proper Jury Instructions in False Imprisonment Case Based Upon Detention During the Execution of a Search Warrant Explained

The Second Department set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on liability and damages because the jury was not properly instructed.  The plaintiff was detained at gunpoint while the police executed a search warrant based upon (apparently wrong) information provided by a confidential informant. The issues which should have been presented to the jury were whether the presumption of probable cause for the search warrant was rebutted and whether the “limited authority” to detain during a search was exceeded:

The Supreme Court erred when it instructed the jury to, in effect, apply the Aguilar-Spinelli test to determine the validity of the search warrant. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, as applied in a criminal prosecution, where probable cause is predicated in whole or in part upon the hearsay statements of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the informant is reliable and had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge … . By contrast, in a trial on the issue of liability for false imprisonment, there is a presumption of probable cause for the detention which the plaintiff must rebut with evidence that the warrant was procured based upon the false or unsubstantiated statements of a police officer … .* * *

The Supreme Court should have instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of probable cause by establishing that the NYPD presented “false or unsubstantiated statements” to the Criminal Court Judge to procure the issuance of the warrant … . * * *

We further note that police officers executing a search warrant have “limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” …, and are “privileged to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention of the occupants of the place to be searched” … . Accordingly, if warranted by the evidence presented at the new trial, the Supreme Court should direct the jury to determine, in the context of evaluating whether [plaintiff’s] confinement was privileged, whether the police officers, even if they possessed probable cause to enter the apartment initially, exceeded the scope of their limited authority to detain the occupants of the apartment… . Ali v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08310, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Verdict May Not Be Set Aside Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.30 On a (Waivable) Ground Not Preserved by Objection at Trial

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have set aside the verdict pursuant to a CPL 330.30 motion on a ground which was not preserved by an objection.  Supreme Court set aside the assault second conviction on the ground that the indictment, which charged assault first, was improperly amended during trial to assault second.  Because the defendant did not object to the amendment, the issue could not be the basis for setting aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30:

In considering a motion to set aside or modify a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), a trial court may only consider questions of law, not fact … . Moreover, a trial court may only consider claims of legal error under CPL 330.30(1) where those claims are properly preserved for appellate review … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the alleged amendment of the indictment was not a nonwaivable defect, and the defendant was required to make a timely objection at trial to preserve, for the Supreme Court’s consideration, a claim pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) that the indictment was impermissibly amended … . As the defendant failed to object at trial, he “waived” any challenge to the reduction of the count alleging assault in the first degree …, and the Supreme Court was without authority to set aside the verdict on that ground … . People v Davidson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08346, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

Defendant’s Inability to Articulate a Reason for the Withdrawal of His Plea Was a Proper Basis for Refusal of His Request for An Adjournment of Sentencing to Consider Withdrawal of the Plea

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined defendant’s request for an adjournment of sentencing to consider whether he should withdraw his plea was properly denied (despite the absence of prejudice to the People) because defendant was unable to articulate a reason for withdrawing the plea:

Whether to grant an adjournment is within Supreme Court’s discretion … . Based upon the colloquy at sentencing, defendant had more than a fair amount of time to speak with counsel regarding his interest in withdrawing his plea. Although defendant was out of custody for two months, having been released on his own recognizance following his plea allocution, the record reflects that he only contacted defense counsel the day before sentencing in order to discuss his plea concerns. Despite defense counsel’s inability to meet with defendant that day, defense counsel stated during sentencing that she had spoken with defendant that morning. People v Spears, 2014 NY Slip Op 08221, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

Indictment Rendered Duplicitous By Trial Evidence Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error Must Therefore Be Preserved by an Objection to Be Raised on Appeal

Resolving a split among the appellate division departments, the Court of Appeals determined that an indictment rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence is not a “mode of proceedings” error and the error must therefore be preserved in order to raise it on appeal. The indictment charged one count of attempted murder.  But the evidence presented two different occurrences to which the single count could apply:

The [1st] and [2nd] Departments have held that where it is claimed that the trial evidence has rendered a count duplicitous, the issue must be preserved for review … . The [4th] Department, however, has held that duplicity created by trial evidence violates a defendant’s right to be tried and convicted only of the crimes and theories charged in the indictment, which is a fundamental and non-waivable right, and that such error also violates a defendant’s right under CPL 310.80 to a unanimous verdict, and that preservation is unnecessary … .

As we held in People v Alvarez (20 NY3d 75, 81 [2012], cert denied — US &mdash, 133 S Ct 1736 [2013]), in relation to the constitutional right to a public trial, “preservation of public trial claims is still required. Bringing a public trial violation to a judge’s attention in the first instance will ensure the timely opportunity to correct such errors” … . Therefore, defendant’s argument that he need not preserve an issue that has constitutional significance is unconvincing.

Any uncertainty could have easily been remedied with an objection during opening statements, the witness testimony, or to the jury charge. Requiring preservation will prevent unnecessary surprise after the conduct of a complete trial. Accordingly, we hold that issues of non-facial duplicity, like those of facial duplicity, must be preserved for appellate review. People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 08222, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

SORA Court Must Designate a “Sexually Violent Offender” a Level One Sex Offender

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a dissent, determined that the SORA court does not have the discretion to designate a “sexually violent offender” as anything other than a Level One sex offender.  Here the defendant was convicted of sexual battery in North Carolina.  The North Carolina offense was found to be the equivalent of New York’s Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a “sexually violent offense” under Correction Law 168-a (3) (a):

“While [the] Court is directed to apply SORA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines . . ., the statutory definition of sexually violent offender, namely, a sex offender convicted of one of several enumerated sexually violent offenses, does not allow for a discretionary determination” … . Thus, although the “level suggested by the RAI [risk assessment instrument] is merely presumptive and a SORA court possesses the discretion to impose a lower or higher risk level if it concludes that the factors in the RAI do not result in an appropriate designation” …, the Court of Appeals has observed that “since 2002, SORA has compelled a defendant convicted of a sexually violent offense’ to register at least annually for life (Correction Law § 168-h [2]; see Correction Law § 168-a [3][a][7]; [b]; L 2002, ch 11, § 13). People v Bullock, 2014 NY Slip Op 08265, 1st Dept 11-25-14

 

,

Anonymous Tip Alone, In the Absence of “Predictive Information,” Sufficient to Provide “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying a Vehicle Stop

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision followed by lengthy concurring/dissenting opinions, determined that anonymous tips were sufficient to justify a vehicle stop in two cases (tips alleged possession of a weapon), but insufficient in a third case (tip alleged driver was sick or intoxicated). The concurring/dissenting opinions dealt with whether the “Aguilar-Spinelli” test or the “totality of the circumstances” test should be applied where reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) was required to justify a vehicle stop, and whether an anonymous tip alone, in the absence of so-called “predictive information,” could be sufficient to justify a vehicle stop.  The significance of the decision is that an anonymous tip alone was found sufficient, under both the “Aguilar-Spinelli” and “totality of the circumstances” tests, in two of the three cases:

Regardless of whether we apply a totality of the circumstances test or the Aguilar-Spinelli standard (see Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]), there is record support for the lower courts’ findings that the stops were lawful in People v Argyris and People v DiSalvo. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants’ vehicle based on the contents of a 911 call from an anonymous individual and the confirmatory observations of the police. Specifically, because sufficient information in the record supports the lower courts’ determination that the tip was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, satisfied the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test for the reliability of hearsay tips in this particular context and contained sufficient information about defendants’ unlawful possession of a weapon to create reasonable suspicion, the lawfulness of the stop of defendants’ vehicle is beyond further review. Furthermore, under these circumstances, the absence of predictive information in the tip was not fatal to its reliability … .

In People v Johnson, whether evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances or under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework, the reliability of the tip was not established. The caller’s cursory allegation that the driver of the car was either sick or intoxicated, without more, did not supply the sheriff’s deputy who stopped the car with reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated (see generally People v DeBour …) . Although the deputy observed defendant commit a minor traffic infraction, this did not authorize the vehicle stop because he was outside his geographical jurisdiction at the time of the infraction (see CPL 140.10 [2] [a]), and defendant’s actions in committing the violation did not elevate the deputy’s suspicion sufficiently to justify the stop of defendant’s car. People v Argyris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08220, CtApp 11-25-14

 

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