The People of the State of New York v. William Credle, Defendant. (2026)

Summary

1. The court, on its own motion,¹ CONSOLIDATES the two defense motions at bar into one for purposes of this decision and order.²

2. The defense application to controvert the search warrant is DENIED.

3. The defense application to deem invalid the People's certificate of compliance dated December 10, 2025, is GRANTED.

4. All other defense applications are DENIED.

I. Factual Allegations and Procedural Background

Defendant, William Credle, stands indicted on charges of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [4]) and other related offenses. It is alleged that defendant, who is in his mid-20s, began communicating through social media with the complainant, who is less than 17 years old. On or about November 4, 2025, defendant hired a car service to transport the complainant from her New Jersey home to his Bronx County apartment. Upon realizing that the complainant was not at home, her mother located social media messages with defendant on the complainant's laptop, including a screenshot of the car service receipt. The mother contacted the NYPD after she was unable to reach the complainant directly.

An NYPD Emergency Services Unit gained access to defendant's apartment by removing the door from its frame. The complainant, defendant and defendant's roommate were observed therein. The complainant was taken by ambulance to a local hospital for treatment; defendant and his roommate were placed under arrest.³ The apartment was frozen by NYPD officials while the People applied for two search warrants, one to search defendant's apartment and one to search his person. The Criminal Court (Samuel L. David, J.) granted both search warrant applications.

On November 7, 2025, the Bronx County grand jury voted a true bill, and defendant was arraigned on the instant indictment on December 2, 2025. The People served and filed a certificate of compliance (CoC) on December 10, 2025, and a supplemental CoC (SCoC) on each of December 16, 2025, and January 27, January 30, and February 26, 2026.

II. Motion to Controvert the Search Warrant

By motion dated January 30, 2026, defendant moves to controvert the search warrant executed at the apartment.⁴ The People oppose the motion in responsive papers dated March 10, 2026. "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine whether it was supported by probable cause or whether it contained a sufficiently particular description of its target, the critical facts and circumstances for the reviewing court are those which were made known to the issuing Magistrate at the time the warrant application was determined" (People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396, 402 [1975]). Because the search warrant application was reviewed and approved by the Criminal Court it is entitled to a "presumption of validity," and this reviewing court's role is limited to determining whether the Criminal Court "reasonably could have concluded that probable cause existed" (People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578, 585 [1992]; see also People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559 [1975]).

Here, contrary to defendant's arguments, the sworn factual allegations set forth in the search warrant application and a transcript of the prosecution presentation to the Criminal Court—viewed in a common-sense and non-hypertechnical manner within the bounds articulated in Nieves—do satisfy the Castillo standard. Defendant's hearsay and Aguilar-Spinelli complaints also are unavailing. The Criminal Court was presented with information from the police investigation including details shared by identified witnesses and statements attributed to defendant. Thus, the People did establish that the search warrant for defendant's apartment "was supported by probable cause . . . [and] contained a sufficiently particular description of its target" (Nieves, 36 NY2d at 402). Accordingly, defendant's application to controvert the search warrant is DENIED.

III. Motion to Invalidate the People's Certificate of Compliance

By timely motion dated January 14, 2026 (see CPL 245.50 [4] [c]), defendant moves the court to invalidate the People's CoC dated December 10, 2025, due to purported prosecutorial discovery noncompliance respecting 11 categories of material, namely,

1) Body-worn camera footage;

2) Custodial arrest paperwork (a command log, WINQ report, prisoner holding pen roster, pedigree card, and NYPD Online Prisoner Reporting Service report);

3) NYPD Aided card for the complainant;

4) NYPD Crime Scene Unit material;

5) Civilian Complaint Review Board documentation;

6) Facial identification software material;

7) 911 call recording and radio run;

8) Crime Victim Assistance Bureau documentation;

9) Ambulance call report;

10) Digital activity logs; and

11) NYPD chain-of-custody reports for arrest evidence.

Defendant asserts that material from each category either was belatedly disclosed after CoC filing or was undisclosed as of the date of defense motion filing. In responsive papers dated February 27, 2026, the People, in opposition to defendant's CoC-invalidation application, submit that the prosecution "made diligent efforts, which were reasonable under the circumstances, to gather and disclose all discoverable materials to the defense." The court will first address each individual category, followed by " 'a holistic assessment of the People's efforts to comply with the automatic discovery provisions' " prior to filing the CoC (People v Lee, __ AD3d __, 2026 NY Slip Op 03125, *1 [1st Dept 2026], quoting People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 [4th Dept 2024]; see CPL 245.50 [5] [b]).

B. Discovery Due Diligence Analysis per Category

1. Rejected Defense Claims

a. Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The People had previously confirmed that the disputed BWC footage did not exist for any of the multiple named NYPD officials, as each "did not have a BWC activated on the date" for reasons not implicating the prosecution's due diligence or good faith. Defendant proffers no reply briefing contesting this counterpoint, and thus, effectively, "there [is] no factual dispute" over the People's discovery compliance respecting this material (People v Reid, 139 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2016]).

b. Arrest and Detention Paperwork, and an Aided Card

The People concede in the responsive papers to having delayed "inadvertently" in disclosing to the defense some of the usual paperwork generated during the arrest process and pre-arraignment detention. The People submit, however, that the paperwork "contains nothing of evidentiary value." Again, defendant does not contest the counterpoint, thereby effectively conceding the "apparently innocuous nature" of this discoverable material (People v Haggan, 248 AD3d 660, 661 [1st Dept 2026] ["withholding the entity report did not warrant invalidating the COC . . . in light of, among other things, . . . the apparently innocuous nature of the entity report"]). The court similarly accepts the People's uncontested representation that the "Aided Card is duplicative of what is contained in complainant's medical records, which were shared with defendant prior to the filing of the original COC" (see CPL 245.50 [5] [a] ["Relevant factors for assessing the prosecutor's due diligence include . . . whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied"]).

c. Crime Scene Unit (CSU)

Some CSU-related paperwork was shared with defendant prior to CoC filing and is denoted in the CoC. Per the responsive papers, the People have requested the outstanding scientific portion of the

"CSU materials several times since this case's inception. . . . The People followed up for finalized CSU materials on multiple dates. On February 3, 2026, the undersigned received an email from CSU's Quality Assurance Manager regarding the delay. She stated in sum and substance that the Crime Scene Unit is an 'ISO/IEC 17020 accredited forensic inspection agency,' meaning that all cases, 'including electronic reports, handwritten notes and computerized diagrams[,]' go through a review and approval process prior to their completion and release to the prosecution . . . and cannot be shared prior to their finalization."

The "prosecution shall not be required to provide information related to the results of physical or mental examinations, or scientific tests or experiments or comparisons, unless and until such examinations, tests, experiments, or comparisons have been completed" (CPL 245.20 [1] [j]). Defendant does not dispute that the outstanding CSU material falls within the ambit of the statutory exclusion, rendering its belated or non-disclosure unavailing as support for the CoC-invalidation application.

d. Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB)

The court agrees with the People that CCRB documentation is not automatically discoverable under CPL 245.20 (1) (see Haggan, 248 AD3d at 660 ["CPL 245.50 (1) directs that a certificate of compliance (COC) be filed when the People have made diligent, good faith efforts 'to obtain and provide the discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20.' This section does not mention subdivision two"], quoting People v Walker, 232 AD3d 1214, 1215-1217 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1082 [2025]). The CCRB is, by its own words, "an independent agency . . . . The Board's investigative staff, composed entirely of civilian employees, conducts investigations in an impartial fashion. The Board forwards its findings to the police commissioner" (Civilian Complaint Review Board, About the CCRB, https://www.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/about/about.page [last accessed June 22, 2026]; see People v Gourdine, 83 Misc 3d 1264[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51031[U], *7 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]; People v Alvarez, 71 Misc 3d 1206[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50292[U], *9 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021]; People v Peralta, 79 Misc 3d 945, 956 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]; People v Robinson, 81 Misc 3d 303, 311-312 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2023]). Consequently, the "CCRB is not an agency within the People's control. The People, therefore, have no obligation to disclose underlying CCRB records where they do not have them in their possession" (Alvarez, 2021 NY Slip Op 50292[U], *9). However, "to the extent that the People are in possession or come into possession of any underlying documents relating to the CCRB matters, they are ordered to provide those documents to the defense" (People v Carter, 76 Misc 3d 1206[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50837[U], *5 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2022]; see Gourdine, 2024 NY Slip Op 51031[U], *7; Robinson, 81 Misc 3d at 312) or to move for a protective order if appropriate to do so (see CPL 245.70 [1]).

e. Facial Identification Software (FIS)

Defendant's discovery demands for FIS material are "unreasonably overly expansive . . . . These requests are not tailored to an identifiable factual dispute, testing irregularity or theory of impeachment, but instead seek expansive categories of institutional records and system-level metadata unconnected to a reasonable issue in this case" (People v Bennett, 88 Misc 3d 1230[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50284[U], *3 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2026]). Consequently, defendant's FIS disclosure demands do "not constitute grounds for a finding of discovery noncompliance" (People v Lambert, 88 Misc 3d 1228[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50259[U], *5 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2026]).

2. Remaining Defense Claims

Although categories 1-6 of defendant's discovery complaints are unavailing as support for defendant's claim of prosecutorial discovery noncompliance,

"the presence of an overbroad or unsupported request will not automatically extinguish a claim of discovery noncompliance. Instead, as with the prosecution, an analysis of defense reasonableness and due diligence calls for a holistic assessment of defense efforts to comply with the discovery provisions, rather than a strict item-by-item test that would require us to conclude that a CoC-invalidation application is improper if unreasonableness is found respecting even one item" (id. at *3-4 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]).

Categories 7-11 are of sufficient collective weight to warrant further analysis.⁵

a. 911 Call and Radio Run

The People explain in the responsive papers that there "are two 911 calls associated with this case" and aver uncontested that the second call recording and radio run were timely disclosed to defendant. The People, however, "failed to realize they neglected to share the mother's 911 call and corresponding radio run." The People did disclose the missing first-call material to defendant on December 16, 2025, six days after CoC filing. In the SCoC served and filed the same day the People stated only that the "[a]dditional 911 call . . . material was not in the People's physical custody when the previous Certificate of Compliance was filed."

The court credits that the People acted promptly to obtain and disclose the missing 911 call and radio run once the omission was identified (see CPL 245.50 [5] [a] ["Relevant factors for assessing the prosecutor's due diligence include . . . the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery"]). The post-notice diligence notwithstanding, it remains the case that, at the time of CoC filing, the prosecution admittedly had, for reasons still unexplained, "failed to realize" that this highly probative, non-duplicative, discoverable material had not been shared by the NYPD.

b. Crime Victim Assistance Bureau (CVAB)

The People argue in the responsive papers that the CVAB documentation

"contains nothing of evidentiary value other than notifying defense counsel that a victim advocate was present during grand jury preparations in an effort to support the complainant, a minor child, while she testified in front of strangers about being sexually assaulted by the defendant. The People provided defendant with said item on January 9, 2026. Defendant had sufficient time to effectively utilize said item in the preparation of his defense."

The court cannot agree with the People's characterization of CVAB documentation as lacking evidentiary value. The involvement of the District Attorney's CVAB with the underage complainant is legitimate fodder for defense exploration and possible cross-examination (see People v Flores, 217 AD3d 29, 31 [1st Dept 2023]). Certainly, CVAB involvement is not itself improper or untoward. However, information about interactions between the complainant and CVAB representatives could well bear upon witness preparation or otherwise inform the defense investigation and plea negotiations. And, again, CVAB documentation is the District Attorney's own; it has been fully in the People's actual possession from the start. Yet, neither the CoC nor any of the four SCoCs identifies this documentation, and, as with the 911 call and radio run, the People do not explain why it was overlooked in the first place.

c. Ambulance Call Report

The ambulance call report is relevant to, and highly probative of, the sex offense counts charged in the instant indictment. Thus, the People rightly do not contest "that, in the circumstances of this case, and in light of the instruction to interpret CPL 245.20 (1) in favor of disclosure, the FDNY/EMS records were discoverable under CPL 245.20 (1) (j)" (People v Rahman, 79 Misc 3d 129[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50692[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2023], citing CPL 245.20 [7]; see People v Horton, 83 Misc 3d 1283[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51210[U], *3-4 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]; People v Pilgrim, 87 Misc 3d 1262[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 52115[U], *5 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]). The People concede also that it was not until after defense counsel reached out to the prosecution on December 30, 2025, after the CoC was filed, that the People sent a subpoena to the FDNY for the ambulance call report on January 5, 2026.

Furthermore, the report remains unshared as of the filing of the instant CoC-invalidation motion. The People state in the responsive papers only that they "are still awaiting said document from FDNY. This is not in the People's custody and control. The People will share this item when it becomes available." However, the People provide no explanation of what affirmative efforts, if any, were taken to locate and retrieve the discoverable ambulance call report before filing a CoC. Nor do the responsive papers detail any follow-up efforts undertaken after issuance of the subpoena to secure the report's reasonably prompt production. Thus, the People have not demonstrated that due diligence was exercised either prior to CoC filing, or since, respecting the ambulance call report.

d. NYPD Digital Activity Logs and Chain-of-Custody Reports

The People acknowledge that the respective activity logs for an NYPD lieutenant, two detectives and two police officers are discoverable and were belatedly shared with the defendant on January 27, 2026. The People also do not contest the probative value of these logs of multiple NYPD officials of different ranks who were involved in various important investigatory aspects of this case, including executing the search warrant of defendant's apartment and interviewing the complainant and her parents. In the accompanying SCoC, the People stated only that the logs were "not in the People's physical custody when the previous Certificate of Compliance was filed" and did "provide dates People requested these materials."

The People also do not dispute defendant's protestation that, "[a]s of the filing of this motion, none of the six missing Chain of Custody Reports have been shared with the defense." The reports pertain to vouchered arrest evidence, including a cell phone, a DNA sample, a tablet computer and credit/debit cards. The People's explanation in the January 27th SCoC respecting these reports was identical to that for the activity logs, namely, that they were "not in the People's physical custody when the previous Certificate of Compliance was filed." The SCoC does not explain for either the logs or the reports the nature of those requests; to whom they were directed; what follow-up occurred; or whether any additional steps were taken when the initial requests did not yield timely production. Thus, the People did not obtain and disclose the activity logs to defendant until approximately seven weeks after the CoC was filed and served, and six of the chain of custody reports not at all—and the court does not know why.

The People submit that "only one of the seven vouchers collected with any evidentiary value," namely, the "voucher for the suspect DNA kit collected during the execution of a search warrant." As with the CVAB documentation, the court cannot agree with the People's representation of the non-DNA chain-of-custody reports as having no evidentiary value. The reports could expose gaps in the chain of custody of potentially significant evidence, and "such gaps go to the weight of the evidence" (People v Powell, 115 AD3d 1253, 1255 [4th Dept 2014]; see People v Brown-Fort, 13 AD3d 731, 732 [3d Dept 2004]). As with the 911 call material and the digital activity logs, the "not in the People's physical custody" SCoC statement about all but one of the chain-of-custody reports does not constitute a showing of due diligence over this NYPD material prior to CoC filing.

The People's common SCoC explanation respecting the NYPD activity logs and chain-of-custody reports—like with the NYPD 911 call material—is grounded solely in the absence of physical possession at the time of CoC filing. This is insufficient to demonstrate, as an SCoC is expected to do, that "the original certificate of compliance [was] filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence" (CPL 245.50 [1]) respecting probative "law enforcement agency" material that "shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution" (CPL 245.20 [2]).

C. Holistic Discovery Due Diligence Analysis

Defendant does not claim that the prosecution acted without good faith respecting any discovery obligation, and no independent sign thereof is evident from the record. The court's analysis is, therefore, limited to

"[a]ssessing due diligence. In assessing a party's due diligence, the court shall look at the totality of the party's efforts to comply with the provisions of [CPL article 245], rather than assess the party's efforts item by item.

[ ] Relevant factors for assessing the prosecutor's due diligence include, but are not limited to: the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article; the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding; the complexity of the case; whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; whether the omission was corrected; whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and whether the prosecution's delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial" (CPL 245.50 [5] [a]).

The discoverable items in each of the categories 7-11 are not duplicative or easily dismissed as insignificant. All of these items are material to a reasonable defense investigation, as each is potentially probative of important hearing or trial issues, or could affect plea calculations (see People v McGriff, 88 Misc 3d 1216[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50109[U], *7 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2026] ["The modern discovery statute was enacted to promote fairness and efficiency in plea negotiations; in hearing and trial preparation; and in advising clients by providing the defense with information relevant to these purposes earlier in the proceedings"]). The People articulate no complexities in prosecuting the matter that contributed to the admitted discovery lapses. Granted, voluminous discovery was timely shared with defendant at the time of CoC filing. This, however, does not absolve the People of the failure to timely share with defendant—or to notify the defense about—the not-insignificant quantity and diversity of belatedly and non-disclosed, discoverable material. The lack of sufficient explanation in the CoC, SCoCs and responsive papers about many of the discovery lapses over an array of items—including the District Attorney's own documentation and NYPD material "that the State Legislature has decreed to be in the People's possession" (People v Chimborazo, 81 Misc 3d 442, 444 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]; see CPL 245.20 [2])—greatly weakens the People's claim of holistic due diligence.

Upon review of the People's discovery activities against the nonexhaustive factors of CPL 245.50 (5) (a), the court finds that the People have not sustained their "burden of establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries" prior to filing the CoC (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 213 [2023]). To be clear, the court does not reach this conclusion merely because the People's discovery compliance activities contained imperfections. "There is no rule of 'strict liability'; that is, the statute does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecutor' " (id. at 212). After all, "[r]easonableness [ ] is the touchstone" of discovery compliance analysis (id. at 211-212), and under a reasonableness rubric " 'flawless' perfection is not the proper standard against which to judge the People's discovery compliance" (People v Vaillant, 80 Misc 3d 856, 870 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]). The CoC-invalidating concern is that "[t]he People failed to put forward [sufficient] evidence of their efforts to exercise due diligence and make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of [the category 7-11 material] prior to filing the COC" (People v Zurrow, __ Misc 3d __, 2026 NY Slip Op 50807[U], *3 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2026]). Also concerning to the court respecting some of these categories is the fact that the People's "post-readiness outreach did not match the urgency of the omission" (People v Dixon, __ Misc 3d __, 2026 NY Slip Op 50654[U], *6 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2026]). Accordingly, defendant's application to invalidate the People's CoC dated December 10, 2025, is GRANTED.

IV. Miscellaneous and Conclusion

Defendant makes no applications respecting the validity of any of the SCoCs served and filed by the People, and the court issues no decision thereupon. Defendant does submit that the statement of readiness (SoR) that accompanied the now-invalidated CoC is illusory. This claim does not constitute an actionable application, particularly since defendant's motion papers include no notice of an SoR-related application. Therefore, "no motion was actually made" respecting this SoR, any of the SCoCs or any other readiness statements (People v Thomas, 59 Misc 3d 64, 66 [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]).

All other branches and points of the consolidated defense motion have been reviewed and are DENIED as redundant of applications decided herein, duplicative of relevant constitutional or statutory guidelines, or unsupported by defense arguments and the record. The parties are reminded of their respective, ongoing discovery obligations (see generally CPL article 245; Rules of Part 17 [Sup Ct, Bronx County — Criminal Term] rule 4 [Discovery]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Dated: June 22, 2026

Bronx, New York

E. Deronn Bowen, A.J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Two separately filed defense motions are before the court: a motion dated January 14, 2026, to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance (CoC) dated December 10, 2025, and a motion dated January 30, 2026, to controvert a search warrant. The court, on its own motion, CONSOLIDATES the two motions into one for purposes of this decision and order.

2.   Id.

3.   The roommate ultimately was released without charges. The roommate is not accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

4.   Defendant does not move to controvert the search warrant executed on his person.

5.   Should a CoC-invalidation application rest upon an unreasonably overbroad body of discovery demands, then the court may in its discretion deny and dismiss the application without"providing an item-by-item assessment of the reasonableness of each of the . . . points listed in the motion. No reading of the discovery statute requires prosecutors or the courts to separate the grains of discovery wheat from demand chaff on behalf of the defense since, again, CPL article 245 was never legislatively intended to serve as a means for litigation by annoyance and frustration" (People v Lambert, 88 Misc 3d 1228[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50259[U], *12 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2026]).Despite defendant's overbroad claims here—sometimes plainly so—the court finds, in its discretion, that it is more provident to not deny and dismiss the instant application on that ground in light of the collective weight of its meritorious claims.

E. Deronn Bowen, J.