top of page

Criminal Possession of Firearm Suppressed

Criminal Defense Attorneys Suppress firearm evidence obtained in violation of the constitution. When police violate the constitution, a criminal attorney can and should make a motion to suppress the fruits of the illegal search. Here, the firearm was suppressed as a result of the NY Criminal Defense Attorney.

The Defendants in  People v. Peters, were charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 265.03(3)). The Criminal Defense Attorney successfully moved pretrial to have the evidence suppressed as a result of an illegal search/seizure;

The Court here, in suppressing the firearm as an illegal police seizure found that "There was no reasonable suspicion to believe the defendants were committing, had committed or were about to commit a crime. There was nothing other than the defendants' flight that caused the officers to pursue them: there was no testimony of a bulge at either defendants' waistband, any indication that either defendant was reaching for, grabbing at, or adjusting his waistband, or attempting to conceal a weapon." (citation omitted). This is consistent with United States v. Homer, No. 23-CR-00086 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024) that observed, prior to the recent change of law concerning firearm possession in New York, "The licensing regime was strict enough that a reasonable officer could have disregarded whether someone with a gun had a firearm license because licenses were so difficult to acquire that it was unlikely to be relevant for determining whether someone in possession of a gun was committing a crime." Id.

The Court uses the oft-cited framework of People v. DeBour to determine whether the New York City Police violated the law in approaching, searching and/or seizing the defendants:

For the Dunaway/Mapp/Ingle prong of this hearing, the initial burden of proof rests with the People to put forward credible evidence tending to show that law enforcement acted lawfully, and the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the police acted unlawfully (see People v. Baldwin, 25 NY2d 66 [1969]; see People v. Parker, 180 AD3d 1072 [2d Dept, 2020]). The Court must determine whether the police action was "justified at its inception and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place" (People v. Wheeler, 2 NY3d 370, 374 [2004]).

The criminal defendants accused of possessing a firearm did not testify. The officers who did could not articulate the basis for the recovery of the firearm that was suppressed by the Court: "There was also no testimony at the hearing, such as a clinking sound, or the appearance of a heavy or L shaped object, that would suggest that the bag, even if actually thrown from the car, contained any contraband."

The case is People v. Peters, 2024 NY Slip Op 50323 - NY: Supreme Court 2024 (Kings County), and the NY Court holds in suppressing the firearm: "Under these circumstances, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendants and the pursuit and subsequent detainer of the defendants was unlawful. As the firearm recovered from the vehicle was a direct consequence of unlawful police conduct, it must be suppressed"

Cory H. Morris, Esq. New York and Florida, Injury, Addiction, Accident, Call the Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, 631-450-2515 (NYS) (954)-745-4592 (FLA)

Call 631-450-2515 or E-Mail to arrange for an evaluation of your traffic matter, criminal matter or appellate matter.


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page