In a recent New York gun case before an appellate court in the state of New York, the court had to decide whether a search warrant executed by several state troopers was valid. Originally, the trial court decided that evidence found by the troopers should be suppressed, and it granted the defendants’ motion to controvert the search warrant and suppress the incriminating evidence. On appeal, the State asked the higher court to reverse this decision, but the court could not find a reason to agree with the State’s arguments and ultimately denied the request.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendants were charged with drug and weapons offenses after state troopers searched their two-story home in Queens. A confidential informant had told investigators that he knew several firearms were in the defendants’ home since he had visited recently and been shown two guns by one of the residents.
Both the search warrant and the affidavit in support of the search warrant described a two story, two family home with a right entrance and a left entrance.
The officers searched the home and found drugs, ammunition, and guns on the first floor. Interestingly, they found nothing on the second floor. They also arrested several people. The defendants filed a motion to suppress, arguing the warrant that gave the officers permission to search the premises was invalid and that the evidence shouldn’t come in at trial. The Constitutions of both New York State requires that search warrants particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be taken. This warrant authorized the search of the entire house even though the police were aware that it was a two-family home. Accordingly, the trial court granted this motion, and the evidence was suppressed.
On appeal, the State argued that the trial court was mistaken in granting the original motion to suppress. While it might be true, said the State, that the warrant was severable. The State argued that the warrant was invalid regarding the whole house but that the warrant in question was actually better understood as two warrants: one for the top floor and one for the bottom floor. Thus, even though the second-floor warrant might have been invalid, the court still needed to look at whether the first-floor warrant was acceptable.
The court reviewed the warrant and ultimately decided that the warrant was, indeed, one warrant instead of two individual warrants. Therefore, the trial court was correct to analyze the warrant as one complete document. Given this fact, the lower court’s analysis was based on a correct understanding of the warrant, and the decision that followed was valid.
The State’s appeal was denied, and the incrimination evidence remained suppressed for the defendants’ case.
Are You Facing Firearm Charges in the State of New York?
At Tilem & Associates, we litigate aggressively and strategically, and we are experts in representing criminally charged individuals in the state of New York. We are a trusted team that has been serving defendants in the state for over 25 years, and we would be honored to represent you as you work to make sure your rights are well protected. We handle all types of criminal offenses, including New York gun crimes, drug offenses, sexual assaults and more. When you don’t know where to turn, know that we are here and ready to take your call. For a free and confidential consultation with one of our local New York criminal defense attorneys, give us a call today at 877-377-8666. You can also connect with us through our online contact form.