The People of the State of New York v. Walter Terry, Defendant. (2026)

In an order dated May 2, 2026, this Court granted a hearing to determine whether the search of Mr. Terry's residence was conducted in compliance with Criminal Procedure Law Article 690. On June 15, 2026 a hearing was conducted at which the People called Investigator Travis VanAlstyne, and Investigator Patrick Logue.

After the hearing the parties were provided the opportunity to submit Memorandums of Law, and both the prosecution and defense did the same on July 27, 2026

During the suppression hearing, Investigator Logue testified that he had obtained a "no-knock" search warrant on December 11, 2023. The execution of the search warrant on December 21, 2023 was "completely unplanned."

On Direct examination Investigator Logue was asked the following questions, and provided the following answer:

Q: And what did the December 21st plan entail?

A: There actually wasn't a plan. It was completely unplanned execution of a search warrant. It was based upon the fact that the subjects of the investigation, Walter Terry and Albert Maurer, had both been observed leaving the apartment (June 15, 2026 transcript page 15 lines 6-11).

The targets of the search warrant were observed to leave the apartment, and a decision was made to initiate a traffic stop of Mr. Terry. Investigator Logue directed Deputy Sohotra to initiate the traffic stop of Mr. Terry, which was accomplished around 11:45 AM. Investigator Logue arrived shortly thereafter and discussed with Mr. Terry the search warrant for his vehicles and residence. On the roadside during the traffic stop, Mr. Terry asked to see a copy of the warrant. Investigator Logue testified on direct examination that he did not show him the warrant.

Q: Now, at the scene of the traffic stop did he Request to see a copy of the search warrant?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you show it to him at that point?

A: I did not.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 18, lines 11-15).

Mr. Terry was cooperative with the investigation, and was handcuffed in front, and driven back to his residence so that a search could be conducted. Mr. Terry unlocked his front door for the Investigator, and assisted in getting his large dog under control.

The warrant was not executed as a "no knock" warrant. Investigator Logue testified to the same on cross examination.

Q: Investigator, the only reason you were able to go into the apartment was because you had a search warrant correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you had not given my client a copy of that search warrant prior to entering that apartment, correct?

A: That is correct, yes.

Q: And obviously this was a no-knock search warrant, would you agree?

A: Yes.

Q: But it wasn't executed as a no-knock, correct.

A: Correct.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 36, lines 20-21).

No body cameras were used inside Mr. Terry's apartment. Investigator VanAlstyne testified that he did not wear any body camera on the date the search warrant was executed, and testified to the same at the suppression hearing.

Q: And did you have any body camera on that day,Investigator?

A: I did not.

Q: Do you know if anybody had any body camera on That day when executing the search warrant?

A: I don't recall, no.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 9, lines 11-16).

Investigator Logue also testified on cross examination that there were no body cameras utilized inside of the residence during the search.

Q: There were no body cameras utilized inside of the Residence during the search, would you agree with that?

A: I would agree, yes.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 27, lines 1-3).

However, Investigator Travis VanAlstyne took photographs of the apartment, including one of a copy of the search warrant in the bedroom, and a copy of the search warrant on the kitchen table. Investigator VanAlstyne testified that he began taking pictures at 12:52PM.

During Investigator Logue's walkthrough to secure the apartment, he testified that he observed a plastic baggy containing cocaine within a pillowcase. Investigator Logue testified that he did not secure the cocaine baggy at that point.

After the walkthrough, and discovery of the cocaine in the pillowcase, Mr. Terry again requested to see the search warrant. Investigator Logue testified that Mr. Terry was provided a copy.

Q: Now, at some point after all of that was under control did Mr. Terry request to see the search warrant again?

A: Yes.

Q: And was he shown that warrant?

A: He was given a copy of the search warrant, yes.

Q: So a copy was provided to him?

A: Yes.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 21 lines 24-25, page 22 lines1-5).

The People presented photographs at the hearing of a search warrant on the bed, and a search warrant on the kitchen table. Investigator Logue testified that "there was a copy provided to him inside the apartment when he requested it and there was also a copy I believe left later on the kitchen table." Investigator Logue testified that he did not remember where or when he obtained the search warrant, but conceded on cross examination that it was turned over after contraband was already located.

Q: And in that incident report you do state that you gave Mr. Terry a copy of the search warrant but it was after drugs were already found, would you agree with that?

A: Yes, I would agree with that.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 34 lines 12-15).

Several pieces of cocaine were found in the pillowcase. Investigator Logue testified that he removed Mr. Terry's handcuffs so that he could open a combination safe in the residence for the Investigator, although this unhandcuffing is disputed by Mr. Terry's affidavit. The safe contained "a large quantity of cocaine."

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution protect civilians from unreasonable searches and seizures. People v. Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 350 (2001).

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. United States Constitution, 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. New York State Constitution Article I, Section 12.

Once a warrant is secured, the execution of the same must comport with Criminal Procedure Law Article 690, which requires law enforcement officers to provide a copy of a search warrant upon request. Criminal Procedure Law § 690.50(1) states, in part:

In executing a search warrant directing a search of premises or a vehicle, a police officer must, except as provided in subdivision two, give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of his authority and purpose to an occupant thereof before entry and show him the warrant or a copy thereof upon request.

Execution of a "no-knock" search warrant is governed by Criminal Procedure Law § 690.50(2)(b), which states, in pertinent part:

In executing a search warrant directing a search of premises or a vehicle, a police officer need not give notice to anyone of his authority and purpose, as prescribed in subdivision one, but may promptly enter the same if the search warrant expressly authorizes entry without notice.

Significantly, a no-knock warrant authorizes entry without notice, but does not exempt law enforcement from presenting the warrant upon request.

In the instant matter, this Court authorized a "no-knock" search warrant pursuant to CPL § 690.50(2)(b), and thus, law enforcement did not need to give notice to anyone of their authority prior to entering the residence. In this case, Investigator Logue was aware that the search warrant was lawfully issued and was familiar with the contents of the search warrant, i.e., the premises to be searched, so the fact that it was not available when the police made the entry into the residence is not fatal to the search. People v. Crawford, 235 AD3d 1174, 1178 (3d Dep't 2025).

The warrant was not executed as a no-knock warrant, however, as Mr. Terry was cooperative with law enforcement, and had already been given notice of law enforcement's authority and purpose to be at his residence. (See, CPL § 690.50[1]). The physical presence of the search warrant at the scene becomes necessary if the defendant requests to see a copy of it. Criminal Procedure Law 690.50(1); People v. Mahoney, 58 NY2d 475, 480 fn1 (1983); People v. Crawford, 235 AD3d 1174, fn 1 (3d Dep't 2025); People v. Markiewicz, 246 AD2d 914, 915 (3d Dep't 1998). The Third Department, in People v. Okun, 135 AD2d 1064 (3d Dep't 1987) stated in part:

"The entry may have been proper but the search which was conducted before the warrant arrived cannot be justified The search was tantamount to a warrantless search. There is no reason why the searching officers could not have waited a short time until the warrant arrived." Okun, 135 AD2d at 1065-66.

As Judge David Costanzo held in People v. David Roberts, Greene County Indictment No. 70254-24 (September 2, 2025), "While there is authority to have a search warrant executed without giving notice upon entry pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 690.50(1) no such authority exists under Criminal Procedure Law § 690.50 for a Court to dispense with the requirement that an individual be shown a copy of the search warrant upon their request." People v. Roberts, pp 3-4.

Investigator Logue testified that Mr. Terry requested to see a copy of the search warrant at the roadside, which was denied.

Q: Now, at the scene of that traffic stop did he request to see a copy of the search warrant?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you show it to him at that point?

A: I did not.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 18 lines 11-15).

Once inside the apartment, a copy of the warrant was provided to Mr. Terry, but that was after the contraband was recovered by the police with the authority granted by the search warrant.

Q: Investigator, I'm going to show you what's been entered into evidence as People's Exhibit 2. Can you tell me what that item is on the bed?

A: It appears to be a copy of the search warrant that I obtained from Judge Nichols on December 11th of 2023.

Q: And that's the copy that was provided to Mr. Terry, correct?

A: Yes. There was a copy provided to him inside the apartment when he requested it and there was also a copy I believe left later on on the kitchen table.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 23 lines 9-19).

Investigator Logue did not recall from whom he received a copy of the search warrant, or when he received it.

Q: And you discovered drugs at that point in time, correct?

A: I could see just like a plastic baggy inside the pillowcase that appeared to have cocaine in it.

Q: And your authority to be in the bedroom at that time was pursuant to the search warrant, would you agree with that?

A: Yes.

Q: And had Mr. Terry been given a copy of the search warrant at that time?

A: Not at that time, no.

Q: And you've testified earlier that you eventually did give him a copy in the apartment, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you get a copy of the search warrant from?

A: That I do not recall. I may have had one of the other investigators bring copies with them when they responded to meet me, but that I do not recall.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 33 lines 7-21).

The defense here alleges that the residence was searched after Mr. Terry requested a copy of the search warrant and before the search warrant was provided. Attached to the motion are investigative notes from law enforcement which state, in part "Inv. Logue did further inspect the bag inside the pillow in which it was observed that there were numerous individually wrapped pieces of what appeared to be cocaine. Investigator Logue did also provide a copy of the search warrant to Walter at his request." (Incident Report dated December 21, 2023 page 5 of 8). Investigator Logue's testimony also tends to confirm these assertions:

Q: And in that incident report you do state that you gave Mr. Terry a copy of the search warrant but it was after drugs were already found, would you agree with that?

A: Yes, I would agree with that.

(June 15, 2026 transcript page 34, lines 12-15).

From the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is unclear at what time Mr. Terry was provided with the warrant. There is no body camera video available from the execution of the search warrant, and the Investigators who testified did not provide clear testimony concerning a timeline for tendering the search warrant to Mr. Terry. It is clear that the search warrant was not provided until after the contraband was located. There was an extended lapse of time between Mr. Perry's traffic stop at 11:45 AM and the time at which photographs were taken of the search warrant on the bed and on the kitchen table - after 12:51 PM.

"Initially, the defendant carries the burden of proof when he challenges the legality of a search and seizure, but the People have the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance." People v. Whitehurst, 25 NY2d 389, 391 (1969).

Upon this record, the Court cannot find that the People have met their burden of going forward with proof that the warrant was executed in accordance with Criminal Procedure Law Article 690. The failure of law enforcement to conduct the search pursuant to mandates of Criminal Procedure Law Article 690 renders the search invalid as a matter of law. The defendant requested a copy of the search warrant, and he was not shown nor provided with the search warrant until after the contraband was located. Therefore, the defendant's motion to suppress the contraband seized from his residence as the fruit of an unlawful search is Granted.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: August ____, 2026

Hudson, New York

ENTER:

Michael C. Howard, J.C.C.

Michael C. Howard, J.