PEOPLE v. GASTON (2022)

This opinion is to elaborate on the court's ruling on June 23, 2022, that the People could, without first obtaining a protective order, withhold identifying information from a tip made to the New York State Division of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Parole”) under New York Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) § 245.20(1)(c).

The defendant is charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law (“PL”) § 265.03) and one count of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree (PL § 220.50(3)). This Court conducted a Mapp hearing on June 23 and July 1, 2022. The People presented two witnesses: Parole Officers James Harford and Latoya Maturine. This Court finds the testimony of the witnesses credible to the extent indicated herein.

Findings of Fact

Parole Officer Maturine has been employed by Parole for almost 15 years and currently works in the Department of Delinquents and Other Institutions. Officer Maturine was assigned as Defendant's Parole officer on November 17, 2021. On November 18, 2021, the Parole office received a phone call from an anonymous caller, who only gave a first name, seeking to report criminal activity by Defendant. The call was originally received by Parole Officer Estevez, who upon learning Defendant's name, added Officer Maturine to the call. No substantive information on Defendant's case was provided to Officer Estevez prior to Officer Maturine joining the call.

After Officer Maturine joined the call, but before reporting any further information about Defendant, the caller claimed that they feared for their safety and did not want anyone else to know that they were calling. The caller was afraid because they believed that Defendant was a “very bad and vicious person.” The caller then stated that Defendant was in possession of a firearm in his home and that Defendant was using the firearm to commit robberies. The caller further stated that Defendant had recorded this information in his phone and that Defendant was using drugs. The caller could not provide Defendant's exact address, but knew that Defendant lived on the first floor of a building uptown. Officer Estevez then told the caller that they could call the NYPD anonymously, but the caller believed that the NYPD would ask too many questions and in doing so, would reveal the caller's identity to Defendant. Officer Maturine then notified the NYPD after receiving this information.

Based on this information, on November 30, 2021, Officer Maturine and seven other Parole officers conducted a search of Defendant's apartment at 202 West 141st Street, Apartment 1E. There, Officer Maturine found a handgun, two loaded magazines, ammunition, a gravity knife, a scale, two bottles of steroids, and baggies in a safe located in Defendant's bedroom closet. The safe also contained copies of Defendant's driver's license, work ID, and his medical card. A Parole officer then notified NYPD, who were outside the apartment and who then arrested Defendant. Defendant was indicted on December 6, 2021.

As part of their discovery obligations, the People turned over to Defense Counsel a redacted copy of the November 18, 2021 tip. On June 23, 2022, prior to the beginning of the Mapp hearing, the People argued that CPL § 245.20(1)(c), which permits the prosecution to withhold identifying information of, among others, 911 callers and confidential informants without seeking a protective order, covered the Parole caller because they had essentially acted as a confidential informant. Defense Counsel argued that the unredacted tip had to be turned over as the caller was neither a 911 caller nor a confidential informant. For the following reasons, the court held that, under the circumstances, the People were not required to produce the unredacted tip because the caller here was akin to a 911 caller under CPL § 245.20(1)(c).

Conclusions of Law

CPL § 245.20(1)(c) requires the prosecution to disclose the names and adequate contact information of all persons other than law enforcement personnel who have relevant information on any charge against the defendant. However, the prosecution may, without seeking a protective order, withhold the names and identifying information of any person who called 911 in connection with the charged offenses if the prosecution does not intend to call that person at trial. Id. Identifying information of confidential informants may similarly be withheld. Id.

It is clear that the People may withhold identifying information from the tip received by Parole in this case. CPL article 245 is a relatively new statute that imposed “broad automatic discovery obligations” on the prosecution. (People v. Hewitt, 201 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 159 N.Y.S.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dept. 2022)). It was intended to “ensure that defendants receive timely and complete discovery.” (People v. Oliveri, 74 Misc.3d 945, 161 N.Y.S.3d 752 (Sup. Ct. 2022)). However, the legislation also reflects the competing need to protect the safety and identity of certain people who aid in the investigation of crime. Section 245.20(1)(c) protects the identities of 911 callers, certain witnesses, certain victims, and confidential informants. These exceptions to the general rule of total disclosure allow the prosecution to decide, in limited circumstances, to withhold information without first obtaining approval from the court. This demonstrates an intention by the legislature to protect those who wish to report criminal activity and whose ability to report such activity depends on their anonymity. In light of this intention, it would be illogical to differentiate the caller in this case because they chose to contact Parole, another law enforcement agency, rather than 911.

Here, the caller never believed that calling Parole would cause their identity to be revealed. The caller specifically decided against calling 911 because they believed that the police would reveal their identity to Defendant by asking too many questions. The caller feared that this would endanger them, as they knew Defendant as a “very bad and vicious” individual. The caller had all the same reasons to maintain anonymity as a 911 caller would; the only reason the caller chose not to dial 911 was to protect their identity. It would therefore contravene the purpose of CPL § 245.20(1)(c) to deny the caller the exact protection they sought by contacting Parole.

However, the court rejects the People's characterization of the caller as a confidential informant. A confidential informant typically has an established and preexisting relationship with law enforcement. (See, e.g., People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 179, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49 (1974) (involving a confidential informant known by the police to be reliable in the past); People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876 (2000) (wherein the confidential informant was a witness in another homicide case). Further, such informants often work with the police on multiple occasions, which helps the police demonstrate the informant's reliability when attempting to establish probable cause. (See, e.g., People v. Calise, 256 A.D.2d 64, 66, 682 N.Y.S.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 1998) (finding that a police officer may swear to a “verified history of success” working personally with the confidential informant to establish the informant's reliability) (quoting People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 549, 592 N.Y.S.2d 628, 607 N.E.2d 775 (N.Y. 1992)). Thus, a confidential informant typically fully reveals their identity to law enforcement and often cooperates with them on a continuing basis.

Here, the caller consciously refrained from doing either of these things. They stated multiple times that they wished to stay anonymous. Further, they chose to contact Parole because they anticipated having to provide them with less potentially identifying information, which clearly indicates their intention to limit their cooperation with law enforcement.

Accordingly, the court holds that the People were entitled to redact identifying information from the Parole call pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1)(c), but because the caller had acted akin to a 911 caller rather than a confidential informant.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Cori Weston, J.