Are Byrna Guns Legal in New York?

June 25, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

Are Byrna and Other Less-Lethal Weapons Legal in New York?

In recent years, products like the Byrna launcher—a CO₂-powered less-lethal device that fires kinetic or chemical projectiles—have become increasingly popular among people looking for self-defense alternatives. But the legality of these devices in New York State is not straightforward. While state law treats them differently than firearms, local restrictions, especially in New York City, make the picture much more complicated.

In this article, we break down where Byrna and similar devices stand under New York and federal law, and how recent court decisions may affect their future legality. If you’d like to hear me discuss this issue directly, you can watch my short explainer video here:
👉 Watch the video

Court Tosses Brooklyn Gun Conviction After Suppression Ruling Exposes Flawed Police Testimony

April 11, 2025 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a rare but powerful decision, a Brooklyn appellate court has reversed a conviction for Brooklyn gun case, vacated the defendant’s guilty plea, suppressed the gun that formed the heart of the prosecution’s case, and dismissed the indictment. The case sends a clear message: when the police can’t meet their burden to justify a stop and search, and when their account doesn’t withstand basic scrutiny, the evidence they recover may be unusable in court.

If you’ve been charged with a firearm offense in New York, especially following a street stop or chase, this case matters. This case demonstrates what we have often said, that a well-argued suppression motion and careful review of officer conduct can lead not just to a reduced sentence, but to complete dismissal of all charges.

The Arrest That Triggered the Case

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.

Controversial Case Before New York Court of Appeals Demonstrates Differing Perspectives on Cross-Racial Identification Instruction

June 24, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In 2017, New York case law created a new precedent indicating that when identification is an issue in a criminal case, and when the identifying witness and defendant are seemingly of different races, the defendant is entitled to a charge on “cross-racial identification.”

This means that when a witness identifies a defendant as the person that committed a crime, and when the witness and defendant are of different races, the defendant has certain rights. The defendant can, for example, request expert testimony, specific questioning, or a jury instruction on what it means to identify a person of a different race. The relevant case law is based on the theory that it is easier to make a mistake when identifying a person of a different race.

Assault and Criminal Possession Case

In a recent case before a New York court, the defendant pled not guilty to assault and criminal possession of a weapon. The victim of the assault was the only person who saw the crime happen, and the entire case was built on the victim’s identification of the defendant as the one who assaulted him. Of note, the defendant and the victim were different races.

New York Court Sides with Defendant in Weapon Possession Case, Affirming that Prior Bad Acts are Generally Inadmissible at Trial

January 2, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully appealed his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon. The defendant originally faced charges after an officer found a .45 caliber gun in his vehicle’s center console. His case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty. On appeal, however, the defendant successfully argued that the trial court unreasonably allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of his past crimes during the proceedings. The higher court, agreeing with the defendant, vacated the trial court’s order. Generally, evidence of prior bad acts may not be used against a defendant with very limited exceptions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer pulled the defendant over one morning because of an illegal U-turn. The officer approached the defendant’s car and immediately smelled marijuana. He took the defendant and his passenger to the station, later finding a .45 caliber gun in the defendant’s console along with three handguns in the back.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and during the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of two prior incidents on the defendant’s record – a 2006 uncharged crime and a 2007 misdemeanor for weapon possession. The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Criminal Possession of a Weapon Conviction, Despite Argument Regarding Discriminatory Juror Striking

September 6, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case between the State of New York and a defendant convicted of criminal possession of a weapon, an appellate court ruled that the defendant did not have grounds to appeal his guilty verdict. Originally, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. His case went to trial, a jury found him guilty, and the defendant promptly appealed. After considering the defendant’s argument that the State unfairly struck a Black individual and a Hispanic individual from the jury, the court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers were on patrol one evening when they received word that they should be on the lookout for the defendant in this case, given that there was an active warrant for his arrest and he had possibly been involved in a recent homicide in the city. The officers eventually spotted the defendant and began following him in his car. They radioed to other troopers in the area that the defendant was on the loose in his silver Ford Taurus.

Another officer on patrol spotted the car. He turned on his emergency lights to stop the defendant, at which point he saw the defendant stop the car, get out of the car, pull out a pistol from his pockets, and drop the pistol on the ground. The defendant then began running on foot.

Facing Drug Charges, New York Defendant Argues Warrants Were Insufficient to Support Officers’ Search of His Home

November 16, 2022 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York court of appeals, the defendant appealed his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officers’ search warrants were invalid and did not meet the correct legal standard that would have allowed the officers to reasonably search the defendant’s apartment. Looking at the warrants, the court of appeals ultimately disagreed, sustaining the defendant’s guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a confidential informant told undercover police officers that the defendant had illegal substances and weapons in his apartment. The defendant had no idea the police were suspicious of him, and he thus was unaware they had secured warrants from a judge to search his two apartments.

Soon, however, the officers executed their search warrants and came into the defendant’s apartment unannounced. They recovered various items, including one loaded pistol, heroin, fentanyl, and drug paraphernalia, immediately charging the defendant after having found these items.

New York Court of Appeals Sides with Defendant and Suppresses Incriminating Statements

October 22, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

Earlier this month, an appellate court in New York ruled in favor of a defendant after he was found guilty of both criminal possession of a weapon and possession of controlled substances. On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court was incorrect when it decided to admit incriminating statements he had made to a police officer before being given any Miranda warnings. Considering the context of the defendant’s statement, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with several crimes in June 2021: criminal possession of a weapon, unlawful sale of dangerous substances, and criminal use of drug paraphernalia. Because the defendant had to receive medical treatment immediately following an incident with the weapon, he was taken to the hospital and put under emergency care.

A police officer was stationed outside the defendant’s hospital room, and the defendant proceeded to call the officer to his bed and say to him, “I’m beat up.” The officer asked the defendant exactly what happened, and the defendant explained the circumstances around how he illegally came into possession of a weapon. The officer then testified as to these statements before the court, using them as part of the State’s case against the defendant.