Attorneys and Parties

Trevon Small
Defendant-Appellant
Attorneys: Twyla Carter, Thomas Palumbo

The People of the State of New York
Respondent
Attorneys: Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., Ethan M. Solomon

Brief Summary

Issue

Criminal procedure: legality of police approach, inquiry, seizure, and frisk under People v. De Bour (New York’s four-level framework for police-citizen encounters), including the evidentiary role of body-worn camera (BWC) footage.

Lower Court Held

Denied suppression; credited officers’ testimony that a hand-to-hand pass suggested narcotics in a high-crime area and that a weight shift/turning away supported a frisk; conviction entered on plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree with a six-month jail term and five years’ probation.

What Was Overturned

Conviction reversed, suppression of the gun granted, and the indictment dismissed.

Why

The officers lacked a founded suspicion for a level two common-law inquiry and lacked reasonable suspicion to escalate to a level three seizure and frisk. The ambiguous hand-to-hand exchange, absence of corroborating signs of a drug sale, and BWC footage showing immediate compliance with hands visible did not support a reasonable belief that defendant was armed or that criminality was afoot.

Background

Around 10:30 p.m. on January 2, 2022, two uniformed officers in an unmarked car observed Trevon Small and a woman walking on East 112th Street in Manhattan. After Small looked toward an officer and crossed the street, officers followed in the car and saw Small hand a small object to the woman; one officer said the motion resembled narcotics activity, while the other conceded the object was unclear and could have been anything. The woman gave no money and was not searched; no drugs were recovered. Officers approached; when asked to remove his hand from his pocket, Small quickly complied and showed empty hands, as reflected on body-worn camera (BWC) video. Officers then grabbed his wrists, patted him down, and recovered a gun from his left jacket pocket. Small was arrested and later pleaded to attempted second-degree weapon possession.

Lower Court Decision

The Supreme Court (suppression court) deemed the officers credible and found a sufficient basis to approach and question Small based on the hand-to-hand pass in what it accepted as a high-crime area. Although the court could not clearly see a weight shift or bulge on the BWC video, it credited the officer’s claim of a heavy object in the left pocket and Small’s turning away as enough to justify a frisk; it therefore denied suppression. A different justice took the plea and imposed a sentence of six months in jail and five years’ probation.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division declined to disturb credibility findings but held the officers’ observations did not meet De Bour level two (no founded suspicion that criminality was afoot) where the object exchanged was unidentified, there was no corroborating exchange of money or immediate departure, and the high-crime characterization was ambiguous. The subsequent seizure was unjustified at level three: Small promptly showed empty hands, and a supposed weight shift/possible bulge—especially where not visible on the BWC—did not reasonably indicate he was armed or dangerous. With no lawful basis for the frisk, the gun and ensuing statements were suppressed, leaving insufficient evidence; the conviction was vacated and the indictment dismissed.

Legal Significance

The decision reinforces New York’s De Bour limits on police encounters: ambiguous hand-to-hand conduct and presence in a purported high-crime area, without more, do not justify a common-law inquiry, and an uncorroborated bulge/weight shift does not alone permit a frisk where hands are visible and there is no specific threat. It highlights the probative value of BWC footage when evaluating officer testimony and underscores that suppression requires dismissal when the seized weapon is the sole evidence of the offense.

🔑 Key Takeaway

Under De Bour, officers need specific, articulable facts beyond ambiguous hand-to-hand contact and generalized high-crime assertions to justify inquiry or a frisk; absent such facts, weapons recovered must be suppressed and resulting convictions cannot stand.