Search and Seizure Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

New York Court Reaches Pro-Defendant Decision in Narcotics-Detection Dog Case, Ruling that Sniffing Does Indeed Constitute a Search

January 9, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent drug case in New York, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court held that using a narcotics-detection dog to sniff a criminal suspect’s body is defined as a “search.” Before this case, New York case law was unclear about whether this specific action constituted a search, which is relevant because any “search” by a government official automatically triggers individual protections under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. By ruling that the narcotics-detection dog’s sniffing is a search under the law, the court opened up more defendants and suspects to important protections under this Amendment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol saw what they believed to be a drug transaction one evening in a parking lot. The officers followed one of the individuals in his car when he left the parking lot, later stopping him for a traffic violation. The officers then requested that the suspect consent to a search of his vehicle. When the suspect declined, the officers brought out their canine to sniff for drugs both around the vehicle and on the defendant’s person.

The dog involved in the search alerted on three different occasions during the interaction. The suspect began to run away, and the officers chased him, caught him, and eventually found a plastic bag with 76 glassine envelopes of heroin. The suspect was charged with criminal possession of drugs, and he then filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs.

New York Criminal Case Highlights Danger of Providing Inconsistent Statements to Police Officers

December 24, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent criminal case before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, the defendant appealed a conviction that he argued was based on an officer’s unlawful search of his vehicle. In the opinion, the court highlighted the defendant’s inconsistent statements to the police officer that searched his car, which ultimately gave the officer reasonable grounds to search the vehicle. Given these inconsistent statements, decided the court, the defendant’s appeal would ultimately be denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer on patrol pulled the defendant over one evening through a routine traffic stop. The officer approached the defendant and began speaking with him through the open driver’s side window. At first glance, the officer noticed that the defendant was sitting in a twisted position, and it appeared as if he was trying to hide one side of his body from the officer.

The officer asked a couple of questions, at one point inquiring as to where the defendant was heading. When the defendant then gave inconsistent answers about where he was driving, the officer asked if he could search the defendant’s car. While the opinion did not specify what the officer found in the vehicle, it was certainly enough for the State to criminally charge the defendant. He filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which the lower court denied.

New York Defendant Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress in Case Revolving Around Criminal Possession of Skimmer Device

October 4, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

A recent case Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument case before an appellate court in New York highlights the power that police officers have to search personal vehicles and seize suspicious items upon discovering evidence of criminal activity. In this case, in particular, the State of New York charged the defendant with unlawful possession of a skimmer device, which is a tool that helps people commit credit card fraud. The defendant was eventually found guilty by a jury, and he appealed, arguing that the officers did not have legal grounds to search his vehicle. After considering the defendant’s argument, the higher court denied the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when an officer pulled him over for not using his turn signal. The officer approached the car, and the defendant quickly admitted that he did not possess a driver’s license. The officer smelled marijuana while speaking with the defendant, and he told the defendant to exit the vehicle.

The officer then searched the car and found a skimmer device in the vehicle. The State charged the defendant with several crimes, including unlawful possession of a skimmer device and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which was denied by the trial court.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Lower Court’s Decision in Stop and Frisk Case

June 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York drug offense case subject to appellate review in the state of New York, the defendant challenged the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was originally stopped by a police officer after the officer saw him exit his vehicle and pull up his pants. Arguing the officer did not have legal grounds to stop him, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs that the officer eventually found on his person. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant promptly appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was sitting in his car one evening when an officer on patrol stopped behind his car to observe. The officer saw the defendant move from the driver’s seat to the passenger’s seat. He then saw the defendant exit the vehicle and pull up his pants as he walked out.

The officer approached the defendant and, after a brief exchange, patted him down. At that point, the officer found marijuana and heroin on the defendant’s person. He was criminally charged, and he quickly filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs. Once that motion was denied, the defendant appealed.

Appellate Court Sides with Defendant in New York Firearm Possession Case

May 20, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

Last month, an appellate court in New York ruled in favor of the defendant in a New York gun case involving the suppression of physical evidence. Originally, a police officer pulled the defendant over when he was driving, and the officer found a firearm on the defendant’s person. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating evidence found during the traffic stop, and the State of New York appealed. Ultimately, the higher court denied the State’s appeal, siding with the defendant instead.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer was on patrol one evening when he saw the defendant driving nearby. He supposedly perceived the defendant to be going too fast and cross a double yellow line, so he activated his lights and pulled the defendant over. As the officer got out of his car and approached the defendant in his vehicle, he saw an empty firearm holder, marijuana, and a plastic bag with a powdery substance inside the car. The officer told the defendant to step outside and immediately found a firearm on the defendant’s person.

The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a firearm. He filed a motion asking the trial court to suppress the evidence of the firearm, arguing the officer did not actually have a legal reason to pull him over. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed.

New York Appeals Court Sides with Defendant in Firearm Case

April 12, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. In his appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court should have suppressed evidence obtained by the police officers that caught him driving with a firearm. Because the lower court failed to suppress the evidence, argued the defendant, it was the higher court’s responsibility to reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings without the incriminating evidence as part of the record. Ultimately, looking at the evidence in the case, the court of appeals agreed with the defendant and reversed the judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving when two police officers pulled him over for speeding. Once they initiated the traffic stop, the officers questioned the defendant and ultimately found a firearm in his vehicle. The defendant was charged, and he filed a motion to suppress the firearm found in his vehicle. The lower court, however, denied this motion, and the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the officers did not actually have a legal reason to pull him over in the first place, thus making their traffic stop illegal, and any evidence they found as a result of the stop should have been inadmissible. During the hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress, both officers testified that they pulled the defendant over because they suspected he was speeding. However, neither of the officers had used radar to actually measure the defendant’s speed before they pulled him over. Instead, the officers testified that they estimated the defendant was traveling around 40 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone.

Defendant in New York Criminal Case Successfully Gets Incriminating Statements Suppressed

March 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case involving leaving the scene of an accident or incident before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress was improperly denied by the lower court. The defendant was criminally charged and convicted after an incident in which he left the scene of an automobile accident without reporting. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the police officer questioning him neglected to give him the proper Miranda warnings before soliciting information. Agreeing with the defendant, the appellate court ended up suppressing several of the defendant’s incriminating statements.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, state troopers were patrolling one evening when they pulled the defendant and his acquaintance over to the side of the road. Apparently, the troopers had been informed to be on the lookout for a car that looked similar to the defendant’s, whose driver was on the run after colliding with a motorcycle nearby.

The troopers brought the defendant out of his car, told him to place his hands on top of the vehicle, and began to question him about where he had been earlier that evening. At that point, the defendant admitted that he had been driving the car for several hours, including at the time the motorcycle accident happened. Quickly, the defendant backtracked and said that he had actually been on the train earlier that night. When the officer asked which train the defendant had taken, however, the defendant could not think of anything to say.

Defendant in New York Robbery Case Loses on Appeal of Motion to Suppress

February 12, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a robbery case before a New York appeals court earlier this month, the defendant asked the court to reconsider an unfavorable decision he received at the trial court level. Originally, the defendant was criminally charged with robbery and criminal possession of a weapon, and he asked the lower court to suppress incriminating evidence that an officer found on his person while conducting a search. The court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and on appeal, the higher court agreed. The defendant’s argument was rejected, and the original judgment was affirmed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers were called to a residential building one night right as a robbery was taking place. The officers arrested several people at the scene of the crime, then they walked out of the building to find the defendant emerging from a driveway nearby. The driveway was right behind the building where the offense occurred, and the officers approached the defendant to see if he knew anything about the crime.

At that point, the officers tried to ask the defendant several questions, but he immediately began running away. The officers chased him, caught up to him, and arrested him. They quickly found a cell phone and cash on the defendant’s person; the cell phone had several incriminating text messages that ended up playing a part in the State’s case against the defendant.

New York Appellate Division Reverses Burglary Conviction After Illegal Automobile Search

December 1, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. The Constitution prohibits law enforcement officers and other government agents from conducting an illegal search or seizure of persons or property in furtherance of a criminal investigation or prosecution. New York’s state Constitution contains similar provisions. Generally, these Constitutional protections require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before performing a search of a person or their vehicle. The warrant requirement does contain exceptions, which allow police officers to perform a search when there is probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found, or for certain safety purposes. The Appellate Division recently reversed a defendant’s burglary conviction which was based upon the fruits of a warrantless search that the trial court had determined to be legally sufficient under an exception to the warrant requirement.

The defendant in the recently decided case was operating a vehicle when he was stopped for a traffic violation. The responding officers testified that they recognized the defendant and his vehicle from a “wanted poster” and an “I-card” that had been distributed to law enforcement after a string of burglaries were reported in the area. The defendant was taken into custody based on his reported description. Police then searched the vehicle and found a backpack which contained property that had been reported stolen in the alleged burglaries. Based on this evidence, the defendant was charged with burglary. Before trial, the defendant moved the court to suppress the physical evidence obtained in the traffic stop, arguing that the police did not have probable cause to search the vehicle based only on the description evidence they knew of at the time of the stop. The defendant’s motion was denied and he was convicted of the charges after a trial.

The defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion, and the appellate division ultimately reversed his conviction. The trial court’s reliance on the “automobile exception” to the search warrant requirement had not been affirmatively argued by the prosecutors before the conviction, and the trial judge’s application of such an exception to deny the defendant’s motion, while not expressly forbidden, was not supported by any evidence on the record when considering all of the circumstances. Because the prosecutors elicited no evidence in support of the trial judge’s reasoning for the denial of the motion, the decision could not stand. As a result of the appellate division ruling, the defendant may not face a conviction for the charges brought against him.

New York Court Grants Defendant’s Appeal in New York Criminal Case, Affirming Defendant’s Motion To Suppress Physical Evidence

September 11, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York criminal case, the defendant successfully filed a motion to suppress physical evidence. The defendant was charged with robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (five counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (four counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools (three counts), obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, resisting arrest, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, reckless driving, failing to comply with a police officer’s direction, failing to stop at a steady red signal, driving a vehicle on the left side of no-passing markers, failing to signal, driving in excess of the maximum speed limit, and operating a motor vehicle without a license.

In the appeal, the defendant argued that was subjected to an unconstitutional search and seizure during the frisk performed by an officer, when the officer removed a wallet from the defendant’s pocket, and again when the contents of the wallet were searched. As a result, the defendant argues that the wallet and its contents should be suppressed at trial. The appeals court granted his motion, vacating 14 of his counts, and ordering a new trial on those counts.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers arrived at the scene of a reported robbery after the defendant allegedly confronted the complainant, claiming to have a weapon, and took the complainant’s wallet. When the police arrived, the defendant allegedly fled on foot, before entering a car and was later apprehended by police officers. The defendant was handcuffed, and a wallet was removed from his pocket. A police officer examined the contents of the wallet and determined that it was the complainant’s wallet. The defendant’s car was identified by police because as he allegedly entered the car, an officer broke the back window of the car so as to make it easier to identify the vehicle, and subsequently reported the vehicle information over the radio. After the defendant was apprehended, he was frisked to ensure officer safety, and the wallet was recovered.