DECISION & ORDERThe defendant Carl Knight is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree in violation of §220.16(1) of the Penal Law and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fourth Degree in violation of §220.09(1) of the Penal Law. By Decision and Order dated January 17, 2018, the instant matter was set down for a hearing. The hearing was held on January 23, 2018, January 24, 2018, January 26, 2018, February 13, 2018, and March 6, 2018. The hearing addressed issues concerning the suppression of physical evidence seized from the defendant and oral statements made by the defendant. Appearing for the People was Janine M. Kovacs, Esq., Assistant District Attorney for the County of Orange. Appearing for the defendant was Jamie T. Ferrara, Esq. The People called five witnesses: New York State Trooper Adam Ferstand, New York State Trooper Kelli McVea, New York City Police Officer Loveth Miller, New York City Police Detective John Sabino, and Cristian Hanganu from the New York State Office of Court Administration. Defendant called one witness: Natalie Knight, wife of the defendant. On April 9, 2018, Assistant District Attorney Janine M. Kovacs, Esq. submitted an affirmation and memorandum of law to the Court and defendant’s counsel Jamie T. Ferrara, Esq. submitted an affirmation and annexed exhibits. Said submissions were considered by the Court.FINDINGS OF FACTOn September 23, 2017 at approximately 7:57 p.m., Trooper Adam Ferstand was on duty in his patrol car on Route 9W in the Town of Newburgh, Orange County, New York. Trooper Ferstand was traveling southbound on Route 9W when he observed a white BMW proceed through a red arrow traffic light at the intersection of Route 9W and Route 32. Trooper Fersthand conducted a traffic stop of the white BMW on Route 32 in the Burger King parking lot. While conducting the traffic stop Trooper Fersthand ran the registration on the white BMW and got an active New York Police Department (“NYPD “) warrant for the registered owner of the vehicle, Carl E. Knight.Trooper Fersthand approached the car and asked the driver for his license and registration, which the driver provided. During his testimony at the hearing, Trooper Fersthand identified the defendant Carl Knight as the driver of the white BMW. After receiving the defendant’s license and registration, Trooper Fersthand returned to his patrol vehicle. Trooper Fersthand utilized the patrol vehicle’s computer to confirm that the “warrant hit” was for the registered owner Carl E. Knight and that it was an active warrant with the NYPD. Trooper Fersthand then went back to the defendant’s vehicle, explained the situation to the defendant, had the defendant step out of the vehicle, and took the defendant into custody on the warrant. The defendant was then handcuffed and placed into the back seat of the patrol car.While in the back seat of the patrol car, the defendant was adamant that the warrant was an old warrant that no longer was valid. Based on the defendant’s representations, Trooper Fersthand called the Central Warrant Division in order to re-confirm that the warrant was active. The Trooper called in the presence of the defendant and the Central Warrant Division confirmed that the warrant still was active. Trooper Fersthand called for another trooper to come to his location to sit with the defendant while the defendant’s vehicle was being inventoried subsequent to defendant’s arrest. The defendant was going to be transported to the Montgomery, New York State Police barracks for the purpose of setting up a prisoner relay to send the defendant to New York City to be returned on the active warrant.Trooper Kelli McVea, who reported to Trooper Fersthand’s location, called for a tow truck for the defendant’s vehicle. Trooper McVea sat with the defendant while Trooper Fersthand inventoried the contents of the defendant’s vehicle prior to it being towed. The inventory was conducted in compliance with New York State Police Inventory Rules and Regulations. While completing the inventory of the vehicle, Trooper Fersthand observed and recovered a clear plastic bag containing 13.7 grams of cocaine. Trooper Fersthand removed the plastic bag containing cocaine from the defendant’s vehicle and placed it on the top of the vehicle. Trooper McVea asked the defendant, “What is that?” The defendant responded that it was coke. The defendant had not been Mirandized by either Trooper Fersthand or Trooper McVea prior to defendant’s statement.After the inventory of defendant’s vehicle was complete, the defendant was transported to the State Police barracks in Montgomery, New York. The defendant now was going to be processed for criminal charges for possession of cocaine, in addition to the active warrant. While processing the defendant, Trooper Fersthand called the wanting agency (the NYPD) regarding the warrant. Officer Miller from the NYPD called Trooper Fersthand back and advised that the warrant was an old, closed warrant that was no longer valid, however, Officer Miller confirmed that the warrant still was active in their system.The People called two witnesses to offer insight as to how and why the warrant still was active. The People called Detective John Sabino of the NYPD who testified defendant’s warrant was identified by the Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) as open and active, and it was not until December 9, 2017 that OCA notified him that the warrant for the defendant had been cancelled. In early 2017 the NYPD was switching over to a new computer system, so the NYPD requested an updated list of active warrants from the OCA. The People also called Cristian Hanganu of the Office of Court Administration who testified that OCA records indicate that on December 8, 2017 an entry was made into CRIMS and the entry was a “warrant vacate” backdated to June 26, 1990. Mr. Hanganu also testified that the records reflect that on March 20, 1990 a warrant was recorded on the defendant’s case and on June 26, 1990 a probation termination was recorded.Cristian Hanganu is employed by OCA in its Division of Technology as a Principal Computer Applications Programmer. Cristian Hanganu testified that OCA transmitted to the NYPD that the warrant for Carl Knight was active on July 18, 2017 and then again transmitted that the warrant was active on December 4, 2017. Cristian Hanganu testified that from his review of the court files regarding defendant’s case, on March 20, 1990 a warrant was recorded on the case, and then on June 26, 1990 probation was terminated and the warrant was never addressed. Cristian Hanganu testified that from June 26, 1990 until December 8, 2017 the status of that warrant never changed in the OCA system. It remained classified as open and active throughout that entire period of time. Further, Cristian Hanganu testified that the actual physical file for defendant’s case burned in a fire at the storage facility where it was being kept. Without the physical file, Cristian Hanganu could not state with any certainty why the warrant remained active after June 26, 1990. Likewise, he could not state that it should not have been active on that date or any date until December 8, 2017.The defendant’s witness Natalie Knight testified that her son, Carl Leon Knight, had been pulled over by a police officer in July, 2017, and the officer had advised that there was a warrant for his father. Thereafter, on July 24, 2017, Ms. Knight and the defendant went to the Warrants Department of the New York Supreme Court at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan, New York and spoke with a clerk of the court. Ms. Knight and the defendant were advised by the clerk that the warrant was not valid and the clerk gave the defendant a piece of paper for him to keep on his person so he could provide an official document confirming that the warrant was not active if he should encounter any problems. The piece of paper referenced by Ms. Knight was admitted into evidence as defendant’s Exhibit I. The document is a certified Certificate of Disposition dated July 24, 2017. The Certificate of Disposition is for the defendant’s 1988 New York County criminal case, which was the underlying case upon which the warrant was based. The document reflects that the defendant was sentenced on October 26, 1988 to 5 years probation and a surcharge of $100.00 which was paid. The document further identifies that probation was terminated on June 26, 1990. Defendant’s Exhibit J in evidence is a certified Certificate of Disposition dated January 19, 2018 which is identical to the July 24, 2017 Certificate of Disposition except that it is dated January 19, 2018 and includes the additional comment: “Warrant vacated on 6/26/90 by Judge Roberts.”CONCLUSIONS OF LAWThe People have “failed to meet their burden of establishing the existence of a valid and outstanding warrant” (People v. Richards, 151 AD3d 1718, 1719 [4th Dept., 2017] citing People v. Jennings, 54 NY2d 518, 522). Based upon the evidence submitted during the hearing, it is clear that the warrant upon which the defendant was arrested, while open and active, was invalid. It appears said warrant should have been marked vacated within the criminal justice system’s records over 27 years prior to the defendant’s arrest in this case. (See, Defendant’s Exhibit J in Evidence, certified Certificate of Disposition, stating, “Warrant vacated on 6/26/90 by Judge Roberts.”)Trooper Fersthand made a valid stop of the defendant’s vehicle and exercised due diligence in confirming the “validity” of the warrant. Despite his best efforts to obtain accurate information, it appears the warrant was invalid. When the defendant was arrested on the warrant, the illegal drugs had not yet been observed or recovered, so the sole basis for the initial arrest was the “active” warrant. Further, “[a]n arrest is invalid when the arresting officer acts upon information in criminal justice system records which, though correct when put into the records, no longer applies and which, through fault of the system, has been retained in its records after it became inapplicable. Accordingly, an arrest made in reliance upon the computerized criminal record file of defendant, which [erroneously] showed as outstanding a…warrant,…is made without probable cause” (People v. Jennings, 54 NY2d 518, 520 [1981]).The illegal narcotics were recovered pursuant to an inventory search and the defendant’s arrest based upon that recovery, while made in good faith and based upon probable cause, was invalid because the recovery was precipitated by the defendant being arrested on what in hindsight was an invalid warrant. As such, the physical evidence seized from the defendant and the defendant’s statements were obtained as a result of an invalid arrest in violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence and statements is hereby granted (see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471; People v. Jennings, 54 NY2d 518 [1981]; People v. Lent, 92 AD2d 941 [2nd Dept., 1983]; People v. Vasquez, 134 Misc.2d 855 [1987]; People v. Watson, 100 AD2d 452 [2nd Dept., 1987]; People v. McElhaney, 146 Misc.2d 748 [1990]; People v. Franklin, 288 AD2d 751 [3rd. Dept., 2001]; People v. Hernandez, 106 AD3d 838 [2nd Dept., 2013]; People v. Richards, 151 AD3d 1717 [4th Dept., 2017]). As the arrest of the defendant was invalid, it is unnecessary for the Court to address any of the other grounds for suppression raised by the defendant (People v. Jennings, 54 NY2d 518, 522 [1981]).This matter is scheduled for a conference to be held on April 23, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. The defendant, defendant’s counsel, and the District Attorney are directed to be present. The People should be prepared on that date to advise the Court if they intend to certify the case and take an appeal or are going to proceed to trial.The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.So Ordered.Dated: April 23, 2018Goshen, New York
