IN RE: A.B. A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT (2026)

On April 30, 2026, the Presentment Agency filed the above captioned juvenile delinquency petition alleging that the respondent, A.B. (hereinafter "the Respondent"), committed acts that if committed by an adult would constitute the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, PL 265.03(1)(b); Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, PL 265.03(3); and Criminal Possession of a Firearm, PL 265.01-b(1).

On May 4, 2026, the Respondent, appearing with assigned counsel, was arraigned and released to his mother with conditions. On May 22, 2026, the attorney for the child filed an omnibus motion seeking inter alia suppression of the firearm recovered from the Respondent on February 24, 2026, and suppression of statements made by the Respondent, or alternatively for the court to schedule a pretrial Mapp/Dunaway and Huntley hearing.

The Court, having heard testimony on August 7, 2026; August 26, 2026; August 31, 2026; September 17, 2026; summations on September 22, 2026; and having reviewed all exhibits admitted into evidence including the body-worn camera footage and the testimony of Officer G. and Sergeant A. makes the following findings of fact pursuant to the Mapp/Dunaway/Huntley hearing held in this matter.

On February 24, 2026, at approximately 10:39 p.m., two unmarked NYPD vehicles containing six uniformed officers patrolled northbound on Madison Avenue within the confines of the 25th Precinct. The first and lead vehicle contained Sergeant R. A. (supervisor), Officer C., and Officer F.. The second vehicle held Officer S. G. (driver), Officer C., and Officer T.. All officers were armed and equipped with body-worn cameras.

Both Officer G. and Sergeant A. testified that at the time they encountered the Respondent on February 24, 2026, they were engaged in routine patrol and were not responding to any specific call or emergency. Each confirmed they had received no 911 dispatch, no ShotSpotter activation, no radio runs of shots fired, and no reports of a weapon being discharged or brandished. Both also stated that they had not been informed by any confidential informant of the presence of a firearm and were not investigating the Respondent or any other individual before first observing the Respondent on the corner of East 132nd Street and Madison Avenue.

Officer G. testified that while traveling 3—4 miles per hour, he observed the Respondent standing on the southwest corner of East 132nd Street and Madison Avenue wearing black sweatpants, a sweater, and a black bubble jacket, accompanied by another youth. Officer G. stated he could see the Respondent clearly due to streetlights and his headlights, despite his windows being rolled up. Sergeant A. also testified that upon initial observation, the Respondent was wearing a black bubble jacket, sweatpants, and sweater. All parties agree that it was nighttime and cold. The officers in the lead vehicle illuminated the Respondent with flashlights from inside their vehicle before any officer exited the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Officer G. testified that he also illuminated the Respondent with his flashlight in response to the lead vehicles shining their flashlights on the Respondent.

Officer G. testified that upon shining his light from inside the moving vehicle, he observed a straight one-inch by six-inch bulge in the Respondent's right jacket pocket, located near the waistband. In describing the bulge Officer G. testified: "[b]ecause when I shined my light, the way the bulge was, the way it was shaped, it's not just like a regular object, or a phone that it could be. I have a firearm, so I would know" and again later "...the bulge that I saw, the one-inch and six inches that went straight." Yet, he did not describe the shape as L-shaped or that of a firearm, only that he "would know" because he has a firearm.

Officer G. testified that Officer C. exited the lead vehicle and grabbed the Respondent. According to Officer G., he and the other officers exited their vehicle moments later. Officer G. stated officers placed their hands on the Respondent without asking his name or any questions, "guided" him to the police vehicle, and handcuffed him. He heard the Respondent state that he was 13 years old and did not consent to a search, and heard other officers tell the Respondent to stop resisting.

Sergeant A. testified that he also observed a bulge in the Respondent's right jacket pocket. However, he described it differently, stating at one point that it appeared to be approximately five-inches by three-inches in size. Sergeant A. testified that he observed the contour of a firearm slide inside the pocket positioned at a right angle and leaning horizontally.

Sergeant A. testified that the nighttime lighting conditions on February 24, 2026 were "excellent," describing the area as "well-lit" with "a lot of streetlights," and stating he could clearly see the Respondent from inside the moving vehicle. He also claimed the lighting was sufficient to observe what he believed to be the right-angled contour of a firearm slide in the Respondent's pocket. However, his own body-worn camera footage shows no streetlight at the corner where the Respondent was first observed and depicts relatively low illumination. On cross-examination, he conceded that no streetlight was visible in the body-worn camera footage. Sergeant A. also initially denied seeing snow on the ground despite his body-worn camera footage clearly showing snow on the ground. These inconsistencies cast doubt on his asserted ability to visually detect the detailed contour of a firearm under the lighting conditions depicted.

The Court finds that while Sergeant A. testified that he saw a bulge from the back seat of his vehicle, he also testified that he needed a flashlight to obtain a better look at the Respondent to determine what the bulge was. This creates a further inconsistency in his testimony regarding whether the bulge was visible with or without illumination.

Based on the combination of body-worn camera footage and testimony, the Court finds that the lead NYPD vehicle pulled into or partially across the crosswalk, blocking the Respondent's path as he began crossing northbound. Officers exited their vehicles rapidly, seemingly within seconds of shining flashlights on him and approached the Respondent. In fact, Sergeant A. testified that the interaction had occurred in "one minute."

The Court finds that officers placed their hands on the Respondent without asking any questions regarding his identity, destination, or reason for being present. No officer requested consent prior to physical contact. The Respondent's hands were brought behind his back, and he was handcuffed within moments of officers exiting their vehicles. There was testimony from both officers, that officers placed their hands on the Respondent's right jacket pocket while the Respondent was handcuffed. Officer G. testified that he felt a heavy metal object, and both the barrel and handle of a firearm, through the jacket pocket. According to Officer G., Officer F. ultimately retrieved a firearm from the Respondent's right front jacket pocket.

Pursuant to testimony by Officer G., he produced two versions of the stop report. According to Officer G. he drafted the initial version of the stop report the day after the arrest. He acknowledged that he has experience preparing stop reports and understands that they are intended to provide a truthful, detailed, and accurate factual narrative describing how a police interaction began, how it concluded, and at what investigative level it proceeded.

According to Officer G., he submitted his first report to Sergeant R. A. for approval. The first version he submitted was rejected because it lacked a narrative section. Officer G. then prepared a corrected version, which Sergeant A. approved on February 27, 2026. Officer G. testified that the first version of his report stated that two individuals had been stopped, that the Respondent was handcuffed for "protective measures," and that it did not describe any outline of a firearm or bulge prior to handcuffing. On cross examination, Officer G. further agreed that the first report did not reference any of the observations he later claimed to have made during his current testimony, including the alleged shape or dimensions of the bulge, the appearance of a rectangular or "straight-line" object, or that one side of the Respondent's jacket appeared weighed down.

Officer G. testified that the corrected version of the report reduced the number of stopped individuals to one, only the Respondent, and that he added that he had observed an outline consistent with a firearm prior to applying handcuffs. He acknowledged, however, that even the corrected report did not contain numerous details he later offered at the hearing, including the specific measurements he attributed to the bulge, his conclusion that the pocket appeared weighted, or the manner in which he claimed to have observed the bulge from inside a moving vehicle while shining his flashlight.

Officer G. testified that both the initial and corrected reports stated that the encounter began at "level two" and lasted approximately one minute. Officer G. conceded that neither version documented facts that would have provided authority to escalate the encounter beyond a "level two" inquiry prior to the moment officers physically seized the Respondent.

Sergeant A.'s testimony confirmed only that he rejected Officer G.'s first report due to the missing narrative and approved the corrected version. He did not testify regarding the accuracy of Officer G.'s observations or the substance of the report beyond confirming that the NYPD stop report system functions as a "living document," in which revisions appear within a single electronic form rather than as separate printed versions.

The Court finds that the entire interaction from initial illumination of the Respondent with flashlights to recovery of the firearm lasted approximately one minute, consistent with testimony from both Officer G. and Sergeant A..

CREDIBILITY ANALYSIS

In assessing the credibility of Officer G. and Sergeant A., the Court considers the consistency, detail, and internal coherence of their testimony, its consistency with each other, and its corroboration by objective evidence. The Court finds that several material discrepancies substantially diminish the reliability of their claimed pre-stop observations. Although the body-worn camera footage establishes that snow was present throughout the area, including the crosswalk, neither officer recalled seeing snow. Sergeant A. repeatedly testified that the area was "excellent[ly]" lit and that a streetlight illuminated the corner, yet the body-worn camera footage establishes that no such streetlight existed. The officers also gave inconsistent descriptions of the alleged bulge. Officer G. described a one-inch by six-inch straight-line bulge, while Sergeant A. described a five-inch by three-inch bulge with a horizontal slide and the grip facing downward. Their testimony regarding visibility was likewise inconsistent, as Sergeant A. claimed to have observed the bulge from the back seat while the vehicle was moving but also testified that he required a flashlight to see it more clearly. Moreover, Sergeant A.'s claimed observation of a firearm from a right-angle vantage point occurred, by his own account, only after the Respondent had already been stopped, restrained, and handcuffed, and therefore cannot provide a basis for the initial stop. The two versions of Officer G.'s stop report as testified to contained material inconsistencies concerning the number of persons stopped and whether a firearm-shaped outline was observed. Viewed in combination, these discrepancies bear on the very circumstances the officers assert as justification for the initial seizure. The Court therefore does not entirely credit the officers' testimony regarding their claimed pre-stop observations and finds that the evidence does not establish a particularized and objective basis to suspect that the Respondent was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. Accordingly, the stop was not justified.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Court must first determine whether the police conduct constituted a lawful level three stop under the framework established in People v. De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 (1976). De Bour establishes four graduated levels of police intrusion. A level one encounter permits an officer to request information where there is an objective, credible reason for the inquiry. A level two encounter permits a greater intrusion based upon a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, also known as common law inquiry. A level three encounter permits a forcible stop and detention and requires reasonable suspicion that the particular individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Level four, an arrest, requires probable cause. Id.; People v. Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 498-499 (2006).

Here, there is no dispute that the officers' conduct constituted a level three forcible stop. "To elevate the right of inquiry to the right to forcibly stop and detain, the police must obtain additional information or make additional observations of suspicious conduct sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior." People v. Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 500—01 (2006). Here, the officers did not approach the Respondent and request information and were not responding to any 911 calls or alerts. Rather, within moments of illuminating the Respondent with flashlights, officers exited their vehicles, physically took hold of him, "guided" him against a police vehicle, brought his hands behind his back, and handcuffed him.

Reasonable suspicion requires more than an officer's generalized belief or hunch. It requires an objective, articulable basis for suspecting that the individual being stopped is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. People v. Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 448 (1992). Conduct that is "equivocal or innocuous" and open to innocent interpretation, does not, without more, furnish the requisite reasonable suspicion. People v. Hinshaw, 35 NY3d 427, 439 (2020).

The sole circumstance offered by the officers to justify the initial seizure was the claimed observation of a bulge in the front right pocket of the Respondent's puffer jacket. The Respondent was outside at approximately 10:39 p.m. on a cold February night, wearing a bubble or puffer jacket. There was no testimony that prior to the stop the Respondent made a furtive movement, attempted to conceal an object, repeatedly touched or adjusted the pocket, fled from the officers, threatened anyone, engaged in a hand-to-hand transaction, or otherwise engaged in conduct indicative of criminal activity or possession of a weapon. Indeed, there was no testimony concerning a report of a person matching the Respondent's description, a description of an armed individual, a recent crime in the immediate vicinity, or any other circumstance connecting the Respondent to criminal activity.

The Court has concerns with the testimony of the officers regarding the nature and appearance of the alleged bulge. Officer G. described a straight, approximately one-inch by six-inch bulge near the waistband while Sergeant A. described an object, approximately five-inch by three-inch, which he claimed appeared to reveal the contour of a firearm slide positioned horizontally and at a right angle. These are not minor discrepancies when the claimed observation of the "bulge" was the principal basis proffered for the initial seizure. The officers' different descriptions call into question whether the observed "bulge" was as distinctive at the time of the seizure to truly support reasonable suspicion.

Further, the testimony concerning Sergeant A.'s ability to observe the alleged bulge is similarly inconsistent in that Sergeant A. testified that he observed the bulge from the back seat of the moving vehicle yet also stated that he required a flashlight to obtain a better view and determine what the object was. Moreover, the objective body-worn camera footage evidence further shows that the area was not actually illuminated by the streetlight he described. These discrepancies are significant to the Court, as his observation was made from a moving vehicle, at night, before any officer approached the Respondent. Testimony regarding the stop report created by Officer G. establishes that there were at least two versions, the first which noted two individuals with no firearm-shaped outline noted and the updated version noting only the Respondent and including an outline consistent with a firearm. Interestingly, neither version documented Officer G.'s claimed observation of a one-inch by six-inch bulge or a weighted pocket, an omission that assumes particular significance given that, again, the alleged firearm-shaped bulge constitutes the principal basis offered for the seizure.

The Court also rejects any attempt to rely on information acquired after the seizure to establish the legality of the seizure itself. Sergeant A.'s testimony concerning his claimed ability to discern the contour of a firearm from a right-angle position cannot supply reasonable suspicion for the initial stop because, by his own account, that observation occurred only after the Respondent had already been physically stopped, restrained, and handcuffed. The legality of police conduct must be assessed at the point at which the intrusion occurred; subsequent observations cannot retroactively supply the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the initial seizure. People v. Messano, 41 NY3d 228, 235 (2024).

The Court is mindful that the reasonable-suspicion inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances and that individual facts should not be artificially considered in isolation. However, the totality of the circumstances does not cure the fundamental deficiency in the presentment agency's proof. The circumstances preceding the seizure establish, at most, that the officers observed an individual standing outside at night wearing a puffer jacket with what was characterized as a bulge in the jacket pocket. The remaining evidence offered to transform that observation into reasonable suspicion consists principally of materially inconsistent testimony concerning the size, shape, visibility, and appearance of the alleged bulge. There is no additional objective conduct linking the Respondent to criminal activity or establishing that he was armed and dangerous.

Accordingly, the initial level three stop was not justified under De Bour. Here, the presentment agency has failed to establish a lawful basis for the initial detention and therefore failed to establish the factual predicate necessary for the subsequent frisk. Because the initial seizure was unlawful, and because the subsequent frisk and search were not independently justified, the firearm recovered from the Respondent's jacket pocket must be suppressed as the product of the unlawful police conduct. To the extent any statements were obtained as a product of the unlawful detention, those statements are likewise suppressed.

Dated: September 23, 2026

ENTER:

HON. JAIMEE L. NELSEN, J.F.C.

Jaimee L. Nelsen, J.