People of the State of New York, v. J.C., Defendant. (2025)

Defendant is charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b], [3]). He moves to suppress physical evidence and a statement, on the ground that they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The People oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted.

Procedural Background

Following motion practice, on September 3, 2025, I decided defendant's omnibus motion and granted Mapp, Dunaway and Huntley hearings. On November 7, 2025, I presided over a combined Mapp-Dunaway-Huntley hearing. The People called Police Officer Matthew Crudele and Police Officer Joseph Medina. In addition, the People introduced into evidence: (1) video from the body-worn cameras (BWC) of Officers Crudele and Medina; (2) video footage of the front walkway, entrance and lobby of 1695 Madison Avenue; (3) a photo of a firearm; and (4) a photo of a bag and its contents. Defendant did not call witnesses or introduce other evidence. At the close of the evidence, the parties made oral arguments.

Discussion

I credit Officer Crudele's testimony with the exception of those portions that are not consistent with the video evidence. I credit Officer Medina's testimony in its entirety. From all the evidence adduced at the hearing, I make the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below.

Findings of Fact

Testimony of Police Officer Matthew Crudele

Matthew Crudele has been a police officer with the 23rd precinct of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for approximately six years. After working as a patrol officer for a few years, Officer Crudele was assigned to the Neighborhood Safety Team which handles "specific conditions" and "problematic occurrences" within the precinct. Three months prior to the hearing, Officer Crudele was assigned as a Field Intelligence Officer in the precinct. During his NYPD career, Officer Crudele has made approximately 120 arrests, more than 20 of which involved firearms.

On April 19, 2025, Officers Crudele and Medina were Neighborhood Safety Team partners, working in uniform, on patrol in an unmarked car. Officer Medina drove and Officer Crudele rode in the front passenger seat. They worked with a second unmarked vehicle, in which Sergeant Anthony Stabile and Police Officer Dennis Maroldo rode. At approximately 3:51 pm, Officers Crudele and Medina traveled north on Madison Avenue between 112th and 115th Streets. The officers pulled up to 1695 Madison Avenue, a building of the Taft Houses complex. Officer Crudele testified that there had not been any 911 calls or radio transmissions directing them to the location. He also stated that although he knew that A.F., a young black man who was the subject of a probable cause I-card for attempted murder, frequented the Taft Houses, the officers did not go to 1695 Madison Avenue to try to apprehend A.F. Officer Crudele also testified that many young black men live at the Taft Houses complex.

Officer Crudele testified that when almost directly in front of the door to the building, he saw defendant standing in the area of the building's doorway frame. There were three to four young black men near defendant, one of whom was A.M., a person Officer Crudele had seen with A.F. at the Taft Houses. Officer Crudele testified, on direct examination, that he looked at defendant while in the car but he could not recall if defendant looked at him and, on cross-examination, that he did not see defendant look at him. Officer Crudele also testified that he had not announced himself as a police officer and that the unmarked police car's lights and sirens were not activated.

Officer Crudele stated that as the car approached the building, he saw defendant turn, grab a bag, which Officer Crudele believed defendant retrieved from the door frame area, and run inside the building. Officer Crudele testified that he turned on his body-worn camera, exited the car and gave chase into the building and upstairs to the second floor. Officer Crudele also testified that at no point while defendant was running did defendant reach for anything or touch his waistband. Officer Crudele stated that when he exited the stairs at the second floor, he saw defendant at the end of the hallway in front of an apartment door, trying to open it, and holding a recyclable grocery bag in his hand.

Officer Crudele testified that he ran to defendant and, as he reached him, a woman opened the door and defendant dropped the bag into the apartment. Officer Crudele explained, "[i]t was almost simultaneously when I ran up to him, closing in on him, when the door opened and the bag was discarded into the - - um, the room." Officer Crudele also saw a baby bottle containing a green substance at defendant's feet which he believed to be a controlled substance known as "lean," made with a mixture of cough syrup, codeine and promethazine. Officer Crudele testified that the woman who opened the door asked defendant what he was doing with the bag and said that defendant was her son's friend. Officer Crudele explained that he asked defendant about the bag, because defendant discarded it "into the door," and that, in response, defendant stated that it was his food. Officer Crudele testified that he eventually saw the contents of the bag, including a black and gray revolver.

Testimony of Police Officer Joseph Medina

Joseph Medina has been an officer with the 23rd precinct of the NYPD for approximately six and a half years. Officer Medina testified that on April 19, 2025, he drove with Officer Crudele, who was in the passenger seat, on Madison Avenue to the Taft Houses. When they arrived, Officer Medina saw three or four people, one of whom was defendant, outside of the lobby area. Officer Medina explained that defendant and the others were "hanging," all just standing outside and that he did not see defendant holding anything in his hands. Officer Medina testified that, as he pulled up to the building, he saw defendant run and that Officer Crudele "jumped out of the car right away" and "ran after [defendant]." Officer Medina parked and locked the car and gave chase too, running after Officer Crudele.

When Officer Medina got to the second floor, where he followed Officer Crudele, he saw that Officer Crudele "had defendant stopped." Officer Medina testified that he could not recall if Officer Crudele was holding defendant but that Officer Crudele "had [defendant]." Officer Medina saw a bottle of "lean" at defendant's feet and an apartment door open. The woman inside the apartment said defendant was her son's friend and handed Officer Medina a gray reusable shopping bag. Officer Medina untied the bag to open it and looked through it. Officer Medina took an empty fruit punch container out of the bag and when grabbing the bag, he felt a heavy object sinking to the bottom. Officer Medina explained that he was trying to keep his eyes on defendant and Officer Crudele while going through the bag "safely." Inside the bag, Officer Medina saw a black bag and he opened that bag to see what it contained. Upon opening the black bag, Officer Medina saw the handle of a firearm and he stated "92," which meant there would be an arrest.

Body-worn Camera Video

Officer Crudele's BWC video captures Officer Crudele riding in the front passenger seat of the officers' car which travels a short distance before stopping. The video captures Officer Crudele, prior to the car coming to a full stop, with his hand on the door handle and closing the passenger window. It also captures Officer Crudele alighting and running up a short path and stairs to the building's metal front door which is closed. The video depicts Officer Crudele, after a few pulls, opening the door and running through the lobby, where no one else is in view, to a stairwell door. It captures Officer Crudele continuing his run up a flight of stairs, where no one else is seen, to the first landing, going through a door, turning right and running to the end of the hallway. There, defendant can be seen in front of the door of the last apartment on the hall. In the view of the hallway and defendant captured by Officer's Crudele's BWC, the bottle with green liquid is not visible as Officer Crudele is running to defendant.

As further captured on Officer Crudele's BWC video, when Officer Crudele reaches defendant, who is facing the apartment door, Officer Crudele immediately puts his left arm around defendant's back and places his right arm on defendant's chest, turning defendant to him. At the same time, the apartment door opens, a woman is seen, and defendant extends his left arm inside the apartment doorway, dropping a white bag and a cell phone. Officer Crudele's BWC video also shows Officer Medina running down the hall and positioning himself in front of defendant, between defendant, the apartment doorway and the woman in the apartment. At that point, defendant is against the wall where the hallway ends and Officers Crudele and Medina stand on either side of him. Officer Crudele's BWC video shows the woman, with her hands raised, stepping toward the doorway and hall, asking what is happening. Officer Medina remains positioned between the woman and defendant and tells the woman to "just give [them] a second."

Officer Crudele's BWC video also captures Officer Crudele asking defendant, "what's that bag you threw," to which defendant replies, "that's my food" and Officer Medina asking defendant why he ran and whether all he has is "lean." Officer Crudele's BWC video shows Officer Medina turning toward the apartment door and the woman handing Officer Medina the bag, which appears to be a grocery store bag, with the handles tied together. Officer Medina's BWC video also shows Officer Medina opening the bag, removing a container and dropping it to the floor and going through the bag's contents. The video then captures Officer Medina stating, "92" and the officers handcuffing defendant. Officer Medina's BWC also depicts the officers' transport of defendant to the precinct and defendant's arrest processing.

Video from1695 Madison Avenue

In relevant part, the video from cameras at 1695 Madison Avenue captures as follows:

Defendant and two other people are in the building lobby, outside the front door and near the front door. Defendant can be seen with a white bag, which he places on the floor in the lobby, behind a metal panel of the building's doorway frame. As can be seen from the video, the panel is solid, preventing the bag from being visible from the outside of the building. The video also captures defendant standing in the doorway of the building, facing the sidewalk, while the building front door is open; the door appears to be held open from the outside by one of the people with defendant. The video shows defendant back into the lobby, bend, retrieve the bag and run through the lobby to a stairwell door. The building door then closes and, moments later, Officer Crudele is seen coming through the building's front door and running across the lobby to the same stairwell door that defendant had gone through. At the time Officer Crudele is seen entering the lobby, defendant is already out of view.

Conclusions of Law

Defendant argues that the police lacked a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying an inquiry of defendant or reasonable suspicion to justify their pursuit of defendant. Defendant also argues that his putting the bag in the apartment was precipitated by unlawful police action. The People argue that defendant's grabbing the bag and running into the building justified the officers' pursuit leading to their discovery of "lean" which gave rise to probable cause. In addition, the People argue that, even assuming that the police acted unlawfully, defendant made a calculated decision to divest himself of the bag.

On a motion to suppress, the People bear the initial burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct. If the People meet their burden, the defendant bears the burden of proving the illegality of the police conduct. (See People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367-368 [1971].) "Police pursuit of an individual 'significantly impede[s]' the person's freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed" (People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1057-1058 [1993] citing People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447 [1992]). In determining whether the police have reasonable suspicion, "only the information known to the officers prior to the forcible stop is relevant" (People v Brown, 115 AD3d 38, 39 [1st Dept 2014]). In addition, "[f]light alone . . . even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right 'to be let alone' and refuse to respond to police inquiry" (Holmes at 1058 [internal citations omitted]).

Here, the People failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that the police conduct was lawful. Upon their arrival at the building, the officers saw defendant and a few other young black men merely standing near the building's entrance. That when Officer Crudele looked in the direction of defendant, who was in the building doorway, he saw defendant retrieve something and run into the building did not give rise to reasonable suspicion permitting pursuit. The People's argument that the police possessed an objective credible reason which elevated upon defendant "fleeing and grabbing unknown property" allowing them to "pursue to ask more pointed questions" is unavailing. To be sure, flight from a level one encounter does not permit pursuit. Moreover, a person's simply picking up a bag and running, without more, does not give rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

Similarly, although flight coupled with equivocal circumstances might justify a request for information, the People's characterization of defendant's running as "fleeing" is not supported by the evidence that the officers were in an unmarked car, that they did not have their lights activated or announce themselves and that they did not see defendant look at them. Even if the officers did have an objective credible reason to approach and request information and defendant fled, the circumstances here did not give rise to reasonable suspicion permitting pursuit.

Finally, the People's alternative argument that, even assuming that the police conduct was illegal, defendant's relinquishment of the bag was an independent act is also unavailing. There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and therefore courts "should conclude that abandonment has occurred in only the clearest of cases" and "the People bear the burden of proof on this issue" (People v Bilal, 170 AD3d 83, 91-92 [internal citations omitted] [1st Dept 2019]). Here, the evidence establishes that defendant dropped the bag in response to being forcibly stopped by Officer Crudele. The People's contention that defendant's retrieving the bag and running was a calculated act that began before any illegal police conduct contradicts the People's characterization of defendant's actions as fleeing upon the arrival of police.

With regard to whether defendant abandoned the bag, in Officer Crudele's own words, defendant tossed the bag "simultaneously" when Officer Crudele "ran up" to defendant "closing in on him." The BWC video shows that Officer Crudele made a continuous chase from his car to the second floor where, immediately upon reaching defendant, he put an arm around defendant and a hand on defendant's chest. And it was when Officer Crudele began turning defendant that defendant extended his free arm into the apartment, dropping the bag and cell phone. Under these circumstances, defendant's divesting himself of the items was a spontaneous reaction to Officer Crudele's unlawful actions and not an independent act. That the woman in the apartment, upon seeing defendant cornered by officers who were asking about the bag and directed her to wait, then passed the bag to Officer Medina does not attenuate the recovery of the bag from the illegal police conduct.

The People have not established that the police acted lawfully in chasing defendant and forcibly stopping him. In addition, the People have not met their burden of establishing that defendant abandoned the bag. The physical evidence and the statement are, therefore, fruits of unlawful police conduct. Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence and the statement enumerated in the People's June 25, 2025, Automatic Discovery Form is granted.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: December 3, 2025

New York, New York

ENTER:

ANGELA J. BADAMO, A.J.S.C.

Angela J. Badamo, J.