The People v Andre Alberto
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure involving suppression of physical evidence, police pursuit, and whether officers had reasonable suspicion to chase and detain the defendant.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied suppression and found that Sergeant Michael Hain had reasonable suspicion to detain and pursue the defendant, after which a jury convicted the defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of conviction, granted suppression of the firearm, dismissed the indictment insofar as asserted against the defendant, and remitted for proceedings under CPL 160.50 [record-sealing upon termination of a criminal action in favor of the accused].
The People failed to establish that police had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant. The officer only saw civilians chasing the defendant, heard a vague statement that 'that's him,' and observed an undefined physical struggle, all of which were too ambiguous to show criminal activity. Because the pursuit was unlawful, the recovered gun was the fruit of that illegality.
Background
While canvassing a Brooklyn housing development in plain clothes for homicide-related witnesses and surveillance footage, Sergeant Michael Hain saw a group of civilians chasing the defendant and heard a woman shout, 'that's him, he's getting away, grab him.' When the group caught the defendant, Hain observed the defendant and a woman engaged in what he described only as tussling or pulling at each other. Hain tried to apprehend the defendant, who slipped out of his jacket or hoodie and ran. Hain and another detective chased him, brought him to the ground, struggled to handcuff him, and then recovered a firearm wrapped in a bandana from the defendant's waist.
Lower Court Decision
After a suppression hearing, the Supreme Court, Kings County, ruled that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain and pursue the defendant and denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion seeking suppression of the firearm. The defendant was later convicted by a jury of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the People did not meet their burden of showing lawful police conduct. The officer's observations were too vague and equivocal to establish reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. The court emphasized that the officer admitted he was not sure what was happening and that the civilians could have been chasing the defendant 'for anything.' It also noted that the officer, who was not in uniform, did not identify himself as police before pursuing the defendant, so the defendant may not have known he was fleeing police at all. Because the pursuit was unlawful, the firearm recovered after the takedown had to be suppressed. Without the firearm, the weapon-possession conviction was unsupported by legally sufficient evidence, requiring dismissal of that count and dismissal of the indictment insofar as asserted against the defendant.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that police pursuit requires reasonable suspicion grounded in specific, articulable facts showing criminal activity. Flight, even when combined with ambiguous surrounding circumstances, is not enough. A vague civilian accusation and an undefined physical interaction do not satisfy the People's burden at a suppression hearing. The case also underscores that evidence recovered as a direct result of an unlawful pursuit must be suppressed, and if that evidence is essential to the charge, the conviction cannot stand.
Police cannot lawfully chase someone based only on flight and unclear circumstances. When the prosecution cannot show concrete facts establishing reasonable suspicion, any evidence found as a result of the pursuit will be suppressed and the resulting conviction may be dismissed.