Weapon conviction reversed due to illegal police search

A state appeals court has vacated weapons convictions because of an illegal search and improperly obtained statements.

Defendant Kaywon L. Pittman pleaded guilty in April 2023 before Cortland County Court Judge David Alexander, to second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

The case stems from a 911 call reporting a domestic disturbance in Cortland in March 2022.

Cortland police officers located Pittman in a public area and talked to him about the disturbance.

Police discovered there was an active arrest warrant for Pittman out of Genesee County Family Court.

Police told Pittman he was not under arrest at that time, but he was being detained while the warrant was confirmed.

Police took Pittman’s backpack, handcuffed him, and placed him in the rear seat of a police car.

After police confirmed that Genesee County wanted to extradite Pittman, he was taken to the police station for booking.

While he was being booked, and officer “commenced a warrantless search of his backpack,” according to a recent decision by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Third Department.

During that search, and before police rea Pittman his Miranda rights, Pittman told the officer that there was a pistol in a fanny pack within the backpack.

Pittman was arrested for possessing the gun.

He moved to suppress the gun and his statements to police. The motion was denied, and Pittman subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges.

Pittman appealed.

“We agree with defendant that County Court erred in failing to suppress his statements to law enforcement,” Justice Elizabeth A. Garry wrote for the Third Department.

“Spontaneous statements made while in custody which are not the product of questioning, or its functional equivalent, clearly are admissible regardless of whether Miranda warnings were given,” she wrote.

“A genuinely spontaneous statement is one blurted out without any inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed,” she wrote.

The judge “must determine whether defendant’s statement can be said to have been triggered by police conduct that should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a statement from defendant.”

At the suppression hearing, the sergeant who conducted the search testified that, when he removed the fanny pack from Pittman’s backpack, he perceived that the fanny pack was heavy and contained a hard object “shaped like a pistol.”

At that point, Pittman, who was being booked nearby, told the sergeant: “I can tell you what’s in there.”

The sergeant replied: “Yeah? What’s in there?”

“It’s a pistol,” Pittman said.

“In view of defendant’s detention and arrest, the location of the search and the sergeant’s admitted knowledge that the fanny pack contained a heavy pistol-shaped object, his question asking defendant what was contained inside the fanny pack was reasonably likely to trigger an incriminating statement,” Barry wrote.

“As such, County Court erred in determining that defendant’s statements were spontaneous, and they should have been suppressed,” she wrote.

“To justify a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two requirements: The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest. The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances,” Barry wrote.

Two policies underlie the exigency requirement: “the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment,” she wrote.

At the hearing, the sergeant confirmed that Pittman’s backpack had already been secured when Pittman was detained, handcuffed and placed in the vehicle.

The sergeant also established that law enforcement retained control of the backpack at all times, and he carried it into the station while Pittman was escorted by another officer.

The backpack was not within Pittman’s immediate control or “grabbable area” at the time the search was conducted, which would raise concerns about evidence destruction, according to the decision.

Although Pittman was arrested on a Family Court warrant, it was not established that the warrant was for any specific conduct that might suggest the presence of a weapon.

And there was no evidence presented at the hearing about the domestic disturbance that led to the discovery of the warrant.

The sergeant also testified that Pittman was compliant and cooperative at all times, and there was no indication of any concern for public safety.

“On this record, we cannot agree that the People carried their burden to overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to a warrantless search, and the physical evidence therefore should have also been suppressed,” Barry wrote.

“Defendant’s conviction must therefore be reversed and his plea vacated,” she wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035