When the First Department affirmed the conviction in People v Martin on September 30, 2025, it did more than uphold a jury’s verdict. It clarified how trial courts should handle modern Second Amendment arguments, New York’s permissive intent presumption, and the kind of proof that meets the State’s burden on a charge of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. If you are facing a gun charge, this decision shows where judges draw the line and how your defense can meet the State on those points.

The Second Amendment Challenge and Why Standing Matters

You may have heard that federal courts have been rethinking gun laws. Defendants often argue that New York’s licensing rules and possession statutes cannot stand after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. In Martin, the court took those arguments seriously but started with a gatekeeping question: can this defendant bring that challenge in the first place? That is the standing issue. Because the defense had not shown he even tried to obtain a New York license or that trying would have been pointless, the court treated broad Second Amendment attacks as out of reach for him. In other words, you cannot claim a law violates your rights in the abstract if your own conduct never put you in the protected category.

If you are arrested in New York after police recover a weapon from a vehicle, whether you can challenge that evidence depends on whether you had a legal expectation of privacy in the car. A recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, makes clear that passengers without ownership or control of the vehicle usually cannot contest the search unless the person is being charged under a statutory presumption.   The court reversed a trial court ruling that had suppressed a firearm found under a passenger seat and allowed prosecutors to use the evidence at trial.

What The Court Decided

The case began when police stopped a vehicle in Queens. During the stop, a detective testified that he saw the passenger move his hands between his legs and place an item under his seat. After the passenger was removed from the car, the detective looked through the windshield and saw the barrel of a firearm sticking out from under the passenger seat in plain view. The trial court initially ruled that the weapon should be suppressed, holding that the passenger could challenge the search.

On appeal, the Second Department disagreed. The court explained that passengers without ownership or possessory rights in a car have no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle’s interior. Since the prosecution did not rely on statutory presumptions but on the officer’s direct observation, the passenger lacked standing to suppress the gun. The court held that the stop itself had already been found lawful and that the firearm was lawfully seized.

Continue reading

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

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading