164 A.D.3d 1363
N.Y. App. Div.2018Background
- Defendant Lindy Jones was indicted for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, one count of criminal possession in the third degree, and resisting arrest after police recovered a firearm and obtained a custodial statement.
- On April 23, 2014 at ~1:50 a.m., plainclothes officers in an unmarked vehicle observed Jones walking on a well-lit street; an officer saw a "slight bulge" in Jones’s right jacket pocket from ~25 feet away while seated in the vehicle.
- The unmarked vehicle pulled alongside, the officer said "police, stop," Jones looked, quickened his pace and used a cell phone; the officer exited, approached from behind, and then claimed to see the end of a firearm protruding from Jones’s pocket.
- Officers then chased and recovered the firearm; Jones made a custodial statement to police after arrest.
- At a suppression hearing the Supreme Court denied the branches of Jones’s omnibus motion to suppress the physical evidence and his statement; Jones pleaded guilty and appealed, challenging the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police conduct justified a forcible stop/arrest under De Bour | Police: initial approach and observation lawful; firearm discovery validated pursuit | Jones: officers escalated intrusion without reasonable suspicion; observation and pursuit unlawful | Court: police escalated to De Bour level 3 without reasonable suspicion; stop/pursuit unlawful; evidence suppressed |
| Whether firearm observation validated seizure despite prior unlawful intrusion | Police: later observation of firearm cures earlier defects and justifies seizure | Jones: later observation cannot validate an earlier unjustified level 3 intrusion | Court: subsequent observation cannot validate an unlawful level 3 intrusion; seizure improper |
| Whether statement to police admissible given alleged unlawful seizure | People: statement admissible as voluntary and independent | Jones: statement was fruit of illegal police conduct and must be suppressed | Court: statement suppressed as fruit of the unlawful stop/seizure |
| Whether dismissal of indictment required absent suppressed evidence | People: other evidence supported charges and resisting arrest | Jones: without suppressed evidence, prosecution lacks legally sufficient proof | Held: suppressed evidence leaves prosecution without legally sufficient proof; indictment dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (Court of Appeals) (sets four-tier De Bour test for police encounters)
- People v Moore, 6 N.Y.3d 496 (Court of Appeals) (discusses De Bour tiers and purpose)
- People v Holmes, 81 N.Y.2d 1056 (Court of Appeals) (bulging jacket pocket not indicative of criminality; right to ignore police inquiry)
- People v McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521 (Court of Appeals) (later observations cannot validate an unlawful prior intrusion)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine governing statements obtained after illegal police conduct)