Appeals court reverses gun conviction over Miranda violation

A state appeals court has reversed a gun conviction based on a violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights.

Defendant Eric Williams pleaded guilty in October 2022 before state Supreme Court Justice Charles A. Schiano Jr. to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, vacated the plea, and granted a defense motion to suppress all statements made after Williams invoked his right to remain silent.

Police found a handgun in the pocket of Williams’ jacket during a pat frisk that took place following an automobile stop. Williams was a back-seat passenger in a vehicle that was lawfully stopped by police for traffic infractions.

While one police officer spoke to the driver, another officer spotted marijuana on the center console inside the car.

The officers questioned the driver about the marijuana, and the driver showed the officer a blunt and said that there was no other illegal substance in the vehicle.

The police told Williams to get out of the car and he complied. But, when an officer started to conduct a pat frisk, Williams pulled away and attempted to flee.

The officers quickly caught Williams and found a loaded handgun in his jacket.

During an interrogation at the police station, Williams said that he obtained the handgun earlier that day for self-protection.

After Schiano denied a defense motion to suppress the handgun and his statements to the police, Williams pleaded guilty.

Williams’ appellate attorney, Kathleen P. Reardon, argued that Schiano should have suppressed the handgun.

“We reject that contention,” the Fourth Department panel wrote.

The court concluded that, “based on the presence of marihuana inside the vehicle, the officers had probable cause to search all occupants.”

Reardon also argued that the frisk was unlawful under the state Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), which took effect after Williams’ arrest, but before his suppression hearing.

Under Section 222.05 (3) of the MRTA the odor of marijuana, or possession of marihuana in legally authorized amounts, cannot serve as the basis for a police search.

Because Williams’ trial attorney did not argue that Section 222.05 (3) applied retroactively to the police conduct in the case, he failed to preserve that contention for appellate review, “and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice,” the court wrote.

The court also rejected the claim that Williams’ attorney was ineffective in failing to preserve the MRTA issue.

“During the pendency of defendant’s case at the trial level, there was no appellate authority supporting his current contention that Penal Law § 222.05 (3) applied in this procedural context,” the court wrote.

But the court did agree that Schiano should have suppressed statements Williams made to the police after he was advised of his Miranda rights.

Following his arrest, Williams was taken to the police station, where he was advised of his Miranda rights by one of the arresting officers.  After Williams indicated that he understood those rights, the officer asked whether he would agree to waive them and speak to the officer.

Williams responded: “I ain’t got nothing to talk about. I just want to go to jail. I want to go to sleep.”

Rather than confirming whether Williams wanted to waive his constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent, the officer stated: “Well, I don’t want to waste your time, but I am curious about the fight you had been in the morning.”

Williams had discussed the fight with another officer at the scene, or on the way to the station.

Williams spoke to the interrogating officer about the fight and made incriminating statements about his unlawful possession of the handgun.

“We conclude that (Williams) unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and that the officer did not scrupulously honor that right,” the panel wrote.

“Defendant said in no uncertain terms that he did not want to talk to the officer and instead wanted to be taken to jail, and no reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police,” the court wrote.

“We conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is unsupported by the record,” the court wrote.

“We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress all statements made after defendant invoked his right to remain silent, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035