DECISION AND ORDER The Court conducted a combined Dunaway/Huntley hearing on March 2, 2023, and March 8, 2023. The People introduced the testimony of New York City Police Detective Robert Deck, along with a compilation video, interrogation video, and still photographs. Defendant did not submit evidence. The Court finds the testimony of Detective Deck to be credible. After due consideration and for the reasons stated herein, the defendant’s applications are granted. FINDINGS OF FACT1 Detective Deck is currently assigned to the 81st Precinct and has been employed with the New York City Police Department for approximately 16 years. On October 20, 2021, Detective Deck was the lead investigator in a shooting within the confines of the 81st Precinct, near a playground, opposite 241 MacDonough Street, Kings County, New York. Detective Deck received notification that occupants of a vehicle arrived at the 79th Precinct to report that shots were fired into their car. Detectives Deck, Roman, and Malpica went to the 79th Precinct to interview the vehicle’s occupants.2 Mr. Butan informed Detective Deck that his Dodge Hellcat was sideswiped by another vehicle while he was driving on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. Mr. Butan followed the car until it stopped on MacDonough Street, Kings County. Mr. Butan parked his vehicle and called 911 to report the incident. While on the phone with 911, shots were fired at his car. None of the occupants of Mr. Butan’s vehicle saw the shooter. After speaking with the complainants, Detective Deck did observe visible bullet holes in the body of Mr. Butan’s vehicle. Detective Deck left the 79th Precinct and went to the playground opposite 241 MacDonough Street and met uniformed police officers who directed him to a 9-millimeter shell casing recovered from the sidewalk. One officer informed Detective Deck that an unidentified individual reported observing a male riding a bike and then shooting at the parked Dodge Hellcat. There was no further description of the shooter or of the bike. Detective Deck did not recall the name of the officer who relayed the witness’ observation. The police officers then directed Detective Deck to the area around the corner from Decatur Street and Lewis Avenue, where they recovered an abandoned Citi Bike from between two parked cars. On October 21, 2021, Detective Deck went to 422 Lewis Avenue, Kings County, to view video surveillance footage. The footage depicted a male walking, wearing dark clothes and white shoes. He subsequently viewed body-worn camera footage from the initial responding patrol officers and video surveillance footage from 142-144 Decatur Street. The surveillance footage depicts a male wearing dark clothing and white sneakers on the night of the shooting, riding a bike on Decatur Street, across Marcus Garvey Boulevard into the 81st Precinct. Detective Deck subsequentially obtained video surveillance from a management office located at 1595 Fulton Street, Kings County.3 The management office provided video footage depicting a male who fit the description of the person in the video recovered from 422 Lewis Avenue entering the rear of 1625 Fulton Street and taking an elevator. Detective Deck used a still photograph from the videos to create a wanted flyer. On October 29, 2021, Detective Alexander identified the individual in the wanted flyer and provided a name, date of birth, and NYSID number to Detective Deck. On November 1, 2021, Detective Deck created a compilation video with all the footage obtained during the investigation. The complete compilation depicts a male riding a bike toward Decatur Street, getting off the bike at the corner of Lewis Avenue and Decatur Street, and sounds similar to gunshots. The video continues with the individual walking down Lewis Avenue to the corner of Bainbridge Street, along the rear of 1625 Fulton Street, and entering that building’s elevator. On November 3, 2021, the defendant was arrested and brought to the 81st Precinct interrogation room. Detective Deck read Miranda warnings from an index card, after which the defendant agreed to speak. He identified himself as the person riding the Citi Bike in the video and still photographs and entering the buildings at 1615, 1605, and 1625 Fulton Street, but stated that he did not do the shooting. The defendant also consented to a DNA swab and asked to call his mother. Detective Deck was standing approximately less than 10 feet away when the defendant was on the telephone with his mother. Detective Deck overheard the defendant say, “Ma, they got me on video. They got everything on video.” After the phone call, the defendant stated to Detective Deck, “I told my mother everything.” CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DUNAWAY The defendant contends that the police lacked request probable cause to arrest him. The People bear the initial burden to establish that defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979). In determining whether a reasonable basis existed for the defendant’s arrest, the Court must consider “evidence or information, which appears reliable, discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonable likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it.” C.P.L. Section 70.10(2). Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a fellow officer or another police agency in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest. Information received from another police officer is presumptively reliable. Where, however, an arrest is challenged by a motion to suppress, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing that the officer imparting the information had probable cause to act. People v. Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416, 417, 690 N.Y.S.2d 874, 875, 712 N.E.2d 1238, 1240 (1999). Admissibility of the evidence at a suppression hearing when the seizing officer lacked personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to probable cause is governed solely by Aguilar-Spinelli. People v. Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 344 [1994] The Aguilar-Spinelli test first requires the suppression court to assess whether the information on which the police have acted is reliable. The second part of the Aguilar-Spinelli test evaluates whether the informant had an adequate “basis of knowledge” for the information supplied. Under the fellow officer rule, “[i]nformation received from another police officer is presumptively reliable. People v. Oglesby, 121 A.D.3d 818, 819-20, 993 N.Y.S.2d 764, 766 (2014). Here, the People only provided the testimony of Detective Deck and relied on him as the sole witness. Detective Deck testified to learning from an unnamed police officer that an unidentified individual informed the officer that they saw a male riding a bike shoot at the Dodge Hellcat. There were no facts in evidence to show the reliability of the unidentified individual.4 The basis of the informant’s knowledge must be demonstrated because the information related by an informant, even a reliable one, is of little probative value if he does not have knowledge of the events he describes (People v. Rodriguez, supra, at p 491). Conversely, no matter how solid his basis of knowledge, the information will not support a finding of probable cause unless it is reliable. Since police officers may not arrest a person on mere suspicion or rumor, they likewise may not arrest a suspect on the basis of an informant’s tip, perhaps born of suspicion or rumor or intentional fabrication. People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 402-03, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 621, 488 N.E.2d 439, 442 (1985). More was needed to establish the reliability of the witness or their basis of knowledge. The evidence presented does not establish that the witness observed the shooting or merely recounted someone else’s observations, rumors, or speculation. The People failed to provide the name or testimony of the reporting officer. Even if this Court considered the witnesses’ statement, the People failed to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that the defendant is the individual that committed the charged crime. The information that was provided to law enforcement was a male on a bike. There was no description of the bike, the individual’s physical features, age, height, weight, complexation, clothing, or flight direction. Law enforcement recovered a Citi Bike and traced, through video surveillance, the direction of the defendant on a Citi Bike, and subsequently entering two apartment buildings. This Court finds that the facts and circumstances collectively were not of such weight and persuasiveness to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed, and that the defendant committed it. Therefore, the People failed to establish that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant. As such, the defendant’s Dunaway application is granted. HUNTLEY Defendant asserts that his statements made to law enforcement are inadmissible pursuant to People v. Huntley, as fruit of an unlawful arrest. A custodial interrogation conducted by law enforcement must be proceeded by informing the defendant of their constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 490 (1966). A defendant may effectively waive their Miranda rights so long as it is done knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. People v. Davis, 75 N.Y.2d 517, 523 (1990). These rights must be given when a defendant is in custody or deprived of their freedom. People v. Yuki, 25 N.Y.2d 585 (1986). The People must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s statements were given voluntarily. People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 78 (1965). Whether such statements are voluntary is an issue of fact, determined by the totality of the circumstances. When considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court must consider “the duration and conditions of the detention, the attitude of the police toward the defendant, and the age, physical state, and mental state of the defendant.” People v. Brown, 978 N.Y.S.2d 862, 862 (2014). However, if the evidence was revealed as a direct consequence of the unlawful police action, the evidence is tainted and must be suppressed”. People v. Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402 (1979) This Court has determined that the defendant’s arrest was not supported by probable cause, and there were no intervening circumstances between the defendant’s arrest and the statements he provided to law enforcement. Therefore, any statements that the defendant made to the police were fruits of the unlawful arrest. Accordingly, the defendant’s Huntley application is granted. This shall constitute the decision and order of this court. Dated: May 31, 2024
