Court upholds conviction in Erie County gun case

Listen to this article

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, has affirmed a weapon conviction, rejecting the defendant’s claim that the physical evidence in the case should have been suppressed.

Defendant Lafayel Wright, pleaded guilty in October 2022 before state Supreme Court Justice Debra L. Givens, in Erie County, to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

According to evidence presented at the suppression hearing, police officers in a patrol vehicle received information that a 911 caller had reported an assault of a female victim in progress at a certain location.

The officers received a description of the suspect, including their perceived heritage, sex, age, and other physical characteristics, along with a clothing description and direction of travel, according the Fourth Department decision.

Within minutes, a few blocks away from the location of the incident, an officer saw an individual (Wright) on the sidewalk who fit the description.

There was no one else in the vicinity who matched that description. The officer’s testimony and his body-worn camera (BWC) footage showed that, after his partner pulled with overhead lights activated, the officer exited the car and immediately yelled “stop.”

“Without turning around or otherwise acknowledging the officer’s command, defendant began to run down the sidewalk,” according to the decision.

The officer pursued Wright and used his radio to report that the suspect had been located and he again shouted “stop.”

Wright ran between houses and tried to jump a fence when the officer ordered Wright to the ground. Instead, Wright pushed off from the officer and ran back onto the street, where he was caught.

The officer testified that, during the chase, he saw Wright throw a black pistol over his shoulder into a yard. A black pistol was found in the area where the officer saw Wright throw the gun.

Givens ruled that the information the officer had at the start of the encounter — his observation of an individual matching the description in close proximity to the reported assault — provided “a founded suspicion that defendant may have been involved in criminal activity, which provided a common-law right of inquiry,” the Fourth Department wrote.

Givens also found that, as a result of Wright running away when the officer shouted “stop,” the police had reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime, which justified the pursuit and forcible detention of Wright.

“The court thus concluded that the police conduct was justified and refused to suppress the physical evidence obtained as a result of the encounter,” the Fourth Department wrote.

As established in People v De Bour, the 1976 New York State Court of Appeals decision, judges use a four-level test to evaluate street encounters initiated by the police.

• Level one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and only requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason.
• Level two permits a somewhat greater intrusion, but short of a forcible seizure, and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is happening.
• Level three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual and requires a reasonable suspicion that the individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor.
• Level four is arrest, which requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime.

A defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, may give rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit, the panel wrote.

Wright claimed that the officer, without the required reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion, immediately engaged in a level three seizure by using a forceful tone when he ordered Wright to stop.

The Fourth Department ruled that argument lacks merit. A verbal command, standing alone, will not usually constitute a seizure, the court wrote.

Williams claimed that, even if he was not seized when the officer commanded him to stop, his flight was insufficient to provide the officer with the reasonable suspicion to pursue and detain him.

“That assertion likewise lacks merit,” the court wrote.

The court ruled that the officer “had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot,” which provided a sufficient basis for him to approach Wright and make an inquiry.

“We therefore conclude that the court properly determined that the police conduct was justified and refused to suppress the physical evidence obtained as a result of the encounter,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035