New York Criminal Attorney Blog

When Should a Trial Attorney File a Motion to Suppress?

February 6, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

As we have often discussed, one powerful tool that criminal defense attorneys can employ is the motion to suppress incriminating evidence. When a trial court grants a defendant’s motion to suppress, the jury never sees the evidence that the defendant has asked the court to keep out of the trial record. These motions, when successful, can make all the difference for defendants in New York, and they often help defendants win their cases.

How do you know if you, as the defendant, should be filing a motion to suppress? There are several flags that should alert you that there might be grounds for the trial court to suppress incriminating evidence in your case. These include: an unlawful encounter with the police, an officer’s failure to give Miranda warnings, errors in a field sobriety test, and problems with how the State handles evidence before it is admitted in court. Generally, if the prosecutor wishes t0 use incriminating statements, physical evidence or a police arranged identification as evidence at trial, an experienced criminal defense lawyer will include a request for suppression of that evidence as part of their omnibus motion.

It is also true that if you think there might be a chance the court could grant your motion to suppress, it is often better to present the motion than to hold back. In a recent case before a New York court, the defendant appealed her guilty verdict, arguing she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to file a motion to suppress that could have been successful. The court granted the defendant’s appeal, concluding that the defendant’s attorney failed her by not asking the court to suppress evidence that investigators found in a search that might have exceeded the scope of their warrant.

Can Minor Violations of Traffic Law Reasonably Lead to a Traffic Stop in New York?

January 30, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

If you drive on the roads of New York, you are automatically susceptible to police-initiated traffic stops for traffic violations. There is much debate, however, about what circumstances can lead an officer to have “reasonable suspicion” to stop a driver for a traffic stop. Without reasonable suspicion that some law has been violated, police officers are supposedly prohibited from initiating these stops. Can a minor violation in traffic laws give an officer reasonable suspicion under New York law?

Opinion Issued by New York Court

A New York court recently issued an opinion confirming that yes, minor violations in traffic laws can be legal grounds for a traffic stop. In the court’s opinion, it considered a defendant’s argument that his broken headlights and tinted windows were not enough to give an officer reasonable suspicion to stop him while he was driving. Therefore, argued the defendant, any evidence that the officer found in his car during the traffic stop should have been suppressed by the trial court judge in his criminal case. The two infractions cited by the police for the stop were 0 point traffic infractions.

The court concluded that broken headlights and tinted windows were sufficient grounds for a traffic stop. According to New York traffic law, all motor vehicles must display at least two lighted head lamps on the front. In addition, no motor vehicle is allowed to be covered with material with “light transmittance of less than seventy percent.” The officer’s view of the defendant’s car gave him reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, given the defendant’s broken headlights and tinted windows. The court was unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument that the officer did not actually have a valid reason to stop him while he was driving.

When Can Police Officers Legally Impound a Vehicle After a Traffic Stop?

January 23, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

In some criminal cases, officers impound a suspect’s car after they conduct a traffic stop. Is this allowed? When can an officer impound a suspect’s vehicle under the law in New York? Recent case law helps clarify the answer to this very question.

The standard under New York case law says the following:

“When the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith.”

What does this mean? In essence, the police are allowed to impound a car when the driver is arrested and when they impound it according to their office’s regulations. These regulations can vary among police departments, but the case law encourages officers to act “in good faith” when deciding whether or not to impound the vehicle.

New York Court Rules that Lower Court Reasonably Denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

January 16, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent gun case before the New York Appellate Division, First Department, the defendant asked the court to reconsider the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. After reviewing the defendant’s argument, the higher court disagreed, ultimately concluding that the police officer searching the defendant’s bag was within his rights when he searched the bag and found a firearm.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, local officers received a 911 call describing an individual with a firearm at a nearby gas station. Officers arrived at the station and immediately saw the defendant, who matched the suspect’s description. When the officers told the suspect to remain still, the suspect began fleeing the scene. They handcuffed the suspect then searched his bag, noticing that the backpack felt particularly heavy. The officers searched the bag and found a gun. The defendant was later charged with criminal possession of a weapon, and a jury found him guilty as charged.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the gun, claiming that the police search of his back pack was an unconstitutional search. The higher court, though, noted several parts of the interaction between the officers and the defendant that warranted their search of his bag. To start, the defendant matched the description of the suspect in the 911 call. Also, the defendant immediately ran when the officers spoke to him. Lastly, the 911 call had come in only a couple of minutes before the officers picked up the bag, which made it reasonable for them to believe the gun might have been inside the bag.

The Emergency Doctrine as Reason for a Police Officer to Search Private Property

January 9, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York gun case, the Court upheld a warrantless search of a defendant’s bag. Under New York law, when a police officer does not have prior approval from a judge, the officer is still allowed to search and seize a person’s private property under certain limited circumstances. One of these situations is when the officer has a reasonable basis to believe that there is an emergency, and that a search or seizure is necessary to quickly protect the public from harm. Courts can vary on what it means for an officer to have this “reasonable basis” to believe an emergency exists.

Case Before New York Court

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, the defendant argued that a police officer unreasonably searched his personal bag. The officer had found a weapon in the bag, and the defendant later faced charges for and a conviction of criminal possession of a weapon. The defendant’s argument on appeal centered on the fact that the officer did not have a basis to search his private property, given that he had not given the officer permission and that the officer had not obtained a warrant from a judge. The search, argued the defendant, was therefore unreasonable and an infringement on his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The Emergency Doctrine

The court disagreed with the defendant, ruling instead that the officer could indeed search the defendant’s bag under New York’s emergency doctrine. There were several reasons the officer had a “reasonable basis” to believe there was an emergency: the officer was responding to a nearby radio call indicating a suspect matching the defendant’s description had a gun; a woman nearby was yelling that the defendant had a gun; and the defendant fled the scene when the officer approached.

What Factors Does a New York Court Consider in Applying the Emergency Exception to a Warrantless Search?

January 2, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

It is well-established in the United States that individuals have a constitutional right to privacy in their homes. Experienced New York criminal defense lawyers screen cases for illegal searches and seizures. Under certain circumstances, though, police officers can obtain warrants from a court and search a private dwelling as part of a criminal investigation. In general, without having obtained a warrant, officers are not allowed to search an individual’s home. There is, however, an exception. In emergency situations, officers are allowed to go into a person’s private residence without a warrant.

Six Factors to Apply

What is an emergency situation? Case law in New York says that officers should consider the following six factors when deciding whether to enter a home without a warrant: the violent nature of the alleged crime; the possible involvement of firearms; the likelihood that a crime has occurred; whether the suspect might be inside the home; the likelihood of the suspect escaping; and the possibility of a peaceful entry.

Ideally, an officer will weigh these factors before entering a home without a warrant. If (and only if) the six factors cause an officer to reasonably believe that an emergency exists, that officer can enter a private dwelling without a warrant. Because an officer will likely not be weighing each factor carefully during what the officer believes to be an emergency, it is the trial court’s job to later review these factors and determine whether the officer’s frame of mind lined up with the factors.

When Can a New York Police Officer Pull You Over for a Traffic Stop?

December 26, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Most drivers are aware that under certain circumstances, a police officer is authorized to pull over vehicles and conduct a traffic stop. What does the law say, though, about what kind of situation allows the officer to legally initiate a traffic stop? Is a traffic stop only allowed if there is a major traffic violation, or do minor ones allow the stop as well?

New York Case Law

According to New York case law, an officer can initiate a traffic stop when that officer has “probable cause to believe that a driver has committed a traffic violation.” The officer uses the entirety of the circumstances to determine whether the driver has committed a traffic violation. The officer can observe any range of traffic violations, whether major or minor. The legal standard is that the officer must have probable cause, i.e. a reasonable basis, for believing that the driver at issue did in fact commit a traffic violation.

Crossing the Fog Line

In a recent case decided by New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that when an officer pulled him over for swerving, the officer did not have probable cause to believe he committed a traffic violation (and therefore that the officer violated the defendant’s rights). In this case, police officers testified that they saw the defendant cross the fog line in the road three times within a tenth of a mile before they pulled him over under suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

The Importance of Credibility During Suspect Identification

December 19, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently a juvenile who was adjudicated a Juvenile Delinquent in Family Court recently won an appeal. When a victim or witness makes an identification after a crime, the identification must be both credible and consistent. A recent case before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, goes to show just how important this credibility can be in a criminal case. The takeaway from the appellate case is clear: if you are named as a suspect or defendant, make sure your attorney challenges the identification process in any way that could be helpful to your case. With the right kind of challenge, you may be able to get your charges dropped completely.

Case Before the Second Judicial Department

In the appellate case, a complainant saw several black males riding bicycles, then a few moments later, he noticed that someone struck him from behind. The complainant was unable to see who hit him. He testified both that he had no idea who hit him and, inconsistently, that he had noticed the group of men behind him right before he was struck. The complainant further indicated both that he saw the assailants’ faces “for a little bit” and that he only saw the backs of the assailants’ heads.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues to Overturn Drug Convictions

December 12, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York defendant in a drug case, appealed his convictions before the Appellate Division, Third Department. In his appeal, the defendant argued that his convictions were “against the weight of the evidence,” a very hard burden to meet given that the Court is obligated to give deference to the Jury’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Unfortunately, the appellate court disagreed with the defendant’s argument and affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the state used two confidential informants to catch the defendant in the act of selling heroin. Prior to each controlled buy, the police searched the confidential informants in order to make sure they were not bringing drugs to their agreed-upon meetup with the defendant. After each controlled buy, the informants brought the heroin to the police officers that the defendant had sold them. Following the controlled buy operations, the police obtained a valid warrant and searched the defendant’s apartment. They found several incriminating items, including a scale, baggies and cutting materials, and glassine envelopes.

The defendant was charged with and later convicted of a) criminal sale of a controlled substances and b) criminally using drug paraphernalia. Following his convictions, he filed an appeal, arguing that his convictions were against the weight of the evidence.

Can a Police Officer Lie to Elicit a Confession from a Suspect in New York?

December 5, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent criminal case before a New York court, the defendant appealed her conviction for driving while under the influence of drugs. According to the defendant, the police officer lied to her when he questioned her directly after the car accident she caused. This deception, she argued, was grounds for the resulting drug test results to have been suppressed by the trial court. The disagreed, citing New York case law explicitly stating that police officers are permitted to lie to suspects to get them to cooperate.

New York Case Law

According to case law in New York, “police are permitted to lie or use some deceptive methods” in order to encourage a suspect to cooperate. If the officer in question does not implicitly or explicitly threaten the suspect, it is lawful for the officer to use the coercive tactic of deception to encourage cooperation.

In the criminal case related to driving under the influence, the officer questioned the defendant because she had hit another vehicle with her car. It became apparent to the officer that the defendant appeared to be under the influence of some substance, and he told her that she might not be arrested if she took (and passed) a drug recognition examination. The defendant proceeded to take the exam, and she failed. In a subsequent motion to suppress, the defendant argued it was illegal for the officer to lie to her and tell her that she might not be arrested if she passed the test.