People v Bryant
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure, specifically whether police had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant and whether a recovered firearm and post-arrest statements had to be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful pursuit.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the branches of the defendant's omnibus motion seeking suppression of the firearm and his statements, and the defendant later pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of conviction, granted suppression of the physical evidence and statements, dismissed the indictment, and remitted for further proceedings consistent with CPL 160.50 [New York sealing statute for records after a criminal action terminates in favor of the accused].
The officers lacked reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant. His conduct in walking near and through residential driveways and a yard was equivocal and susceptible to innocent interpretation, and his flight did not elevate the encounter to a lawful pursuit. Because the gun was discarded during the unlawful chase and the statements followed directly from that illegality, both had to be suppressed.
Background
Police officers in an unmarked car, on routine patrol in Queens and without any report of criminal activity or indication they were in a high-crime area, observed Terrell Bryant walking near 109th Avenue and Farmers Boulevard at about 9:30 p.m. They saw him enter one driveway, later emerge from a neighboring driveway, and then cross the lawn of another residence. One officer believed Bryant appeared to be 'casing the driveways,' although the officers did not see him looking into homes or backyards and did not observe any tools or weapons. When the officers exited their vehicle, identified themselves, and asked him to stop, Bryant fled. Officers pursued him into a backyard, where they heard a metal object hit the ground and later recovered a gun. After his arrest, Bryant made incriminating statements.
Lower Court Decision
After a suppression hearing, the Supreme Court, Queens County, held that suppression was not warranted and denied the branches of Bryant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress the firearm and his statements to law enforcement. Bryant was thereafter convicted upon his guilty plea and sentenced on the weapon charge.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the initial encounter was a level two intrusion under People v De Bour, but the officers' chase became a level three intrusion requiring reasonable suspicion that Bryant was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. The court found that Bryant's observed conduct was merely suspicious and readily susceptible to innocent explanation. Since the officers lacked reasonable suspicion, the pursuit was unlawful. The firearm recovered after Bryant discarded it during the chase and his later statements were direct products of that illegality and had to be suppressed. The court therefore reversed the judgment, granted suppression, dismissed the indictment, and remitted for CPL 160.50 proceedings.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces New York's graduated De Bour framework for street encounters and emphasizes that flight, even combined with ambiguous conduct, does not automatically create reasonable suspicion. Police pursuit requires more than a hunch that someone may be 'casing' property. Where the observed behavior does not particularize criminal activity, evidence abandoned during the resulting pursuit and statements made after arrest are suppressible as fruits of unconstitutional police conduct.
Equivocal behavior plus flight is not enough for lawful police pursuit in New York; without reasonable suspicion, evidence discarded during the chase and resulting statements must be suppressed.