Motiontosuppressexamplesyracuse

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-vs- CASE NO. 08-CR-519 (DNH)
MESHIHA BOATWRIGHT,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affidavit of Defendant, Meshiha
Boatwright, and the Memorandum of Law and upon all prior pleadings and proceedings
heretofore had herein, a Motion will be made as follows:
DATE, PLACE AND TIME OF MOTION: May 5, 2009 at 2:00 P.M. at the United
States Courthouse in Utica, New York or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.
TYPE OF MOTION: Defendant seeks an Order of the Court suppressing the evidence
seized, together with such other and further relief as to the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: April 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
ALEXANDER BUNIN
By: S/James F. Greenwald, Esq.
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Bar Roll No. 505652
The Clinton Exchange, 3 Floor, 4 Clinton Squarerd
Syracuse, New York 13202
(315) 701-0080
TO: Ransom Reynolds, Esq., AUSA
Meshiha Boatwright
Case 5:08-cr-00519-DNH Document 14 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-v- CASE NO. 08-CR-519 (DNH)
MESHIHA BOATWRIGHT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MESHIHA
BOATWRIGHT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE
Syracuse, New York
ALEXANDER BUNIN
Federal Public Defender
By:
James F. Greenwald, Esq.
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Bar Roll No. 505652
Office of the Federal Public Defender
4 Clinton Square, 3 Floorrd
(315) 701-0080
Case 5:08-cr-00519-DNH Document 14-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 9

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Meshiha Boatwright is charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This memorandum of law is submitted in support of his
motion to suppress the evidence at the center of the Indictment. Mr. Boatwright contends that
the information relied upon to support the police officers’ search and seizure of his person is not
accurately set forth in the police reports. Instead, Mr. Boatwright argues that the true facts
underlying the search and seizure of his person, which will be set forth below, render suppression
necessary. However, Boatwright contends that even if the facts are taken directly from the police
report, his seizure was not lawful at its inception and thus any evidence seized pursuant to that
illegality and offered by the government should be suppressed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defendant in this case, Meshiha Boatwright, was illegally stopped by Syracuse Police
Officers as he was entering an apartment complex at 708 James Street in the City of Syracuse,
New York. In his report, Officer James Mills of the Syracuse Police Department claims that he
and Officer Helterline, apparently aware of previous trespasses, loitering and drug sales in the
building, entered an apartment building located at 708 James Street at approximately 10:45 p.m.
on August 15, 2007, to check for trespassers. See Report of Officer Mills (“Report”) attached
hereto. Although the doors to the building were ordinarily locked, the officers let themselves
into the building through an unlocked door. Id. Upon entering, the report continues, the officers
heard two unidentified males involved in a verbal dispute. Id. As the officers continued entering
the building, they “located a tenant walking into his apartment and another male, later identified
as Meshiha Boatwright trying to sell him something.” Id. According to the report, Boatwright
then “spun to run but Officer Helterline was right there.” Id. After being stopped, the report

continues, Boatwright apparently said that he did not live in the building and knew that he should
not be there, adding “I’m just trying to make a little money here.” Id. Following this statement,
the officers arrested Boatwright for Criminal Trespass and upon searching him incident to this
arrest, uncovered marijuana in the right pocket of his pants, crack cocaine in his buttocks, and a
total of $153 in the pockets of his pants. Id.
Mr. Boatwright vehemently denies Officer Mills’s version of the facts. See Affidavit of
Meshiha Boatwright attached hereto. He contends that he was invited into the apartment
building at 708 James Street by his friend, Angel, who rented an apartment in the building. Id.
As they entered the building at approximately 10:45 p.m. on August 15, 2007, Angel used a
plastic key card to unlock the outer door. Id. After passing through the locked door and walking
through the hallway, Boatwright observed a man who he later learned was a police officer
peering through a window in the door located at the far end of the hall. Id. Before Angel and
Boatwright reached Angel’s apartment, the police officers entered the building and approached
Boatwright. Id. One of the officers had a Taser weapon drawn. Boatwright was quickly spun
around and ordered to place his hands on the wall. Id. At no time were Angel and Boatwright in
an argument, and at no time did Boatwright attempt to flee the scene. Id. Further, Boatwright
was neither attempting to sell anything to Angel nor did he say “I’m just trying to make a little
money here,” or words to that effect. Id. What is more, Boatwright never said that he knew that
he was not permitted in the apartment building. Id. Instead, as noted above, Boatwright was
invited into the building. Id. He had identification and showed it to the officers. Id. Finally,
Boatwright never told the officers anything to the effect of “I got 10 grams of Coke in my ass.”
Id. The cocaine found on Boatwright was not discovered until he was strip searched at the police
2

building after Boatwright was searched several times at the apartment building. Id.
Mr. Boatwright now moves for suppression of certain fruits of the initial stop and search
following his arrest. He respectfully submits that the officers’ initial seizure violated his Fourth
Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, in that the officer lacked
reasonable suspicion to believe that Boatwright was engaged in illegal activity. Consequently,
Boatwright argues that all evidence obtained as a result of his illegal seizure should be
suppressed.
ARGUMENT
THE SEIZURE OF MR. BOATWRIGHT VIOLATED THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE POLICE OFFICERS LACKED
ARTICULABLE FACTS THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO REASONABLE
SUSPICION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATORY SEARCH AND
SEIZURE.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees “the right of
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures.” U.S. CONST. Amend IV. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, “the police can
stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S.
1, 7 (1989) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). Such a detention is known as a Terry
stop, and requires that “the officer [have] a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts
that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.” Sokolow, 490
U.S. at 7 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30).
To effect a Terry stop, an officer must be able to articulate something more than an
“inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’” Id. at 27. The Fourth Amendment
requires “some minimal level of objective justification” for making the stop. INS v. Delgado,
3

466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984). That level of suspicion is considerably less, however, than proof of
wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7.
To provide a deterrent safeguard, the Supreme Court has held that evidence seized in
violation of the Fourth Amendment, absent some exception not here applicable, must be
suppressed. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
To be legal, a Terry stop must be “justified at its inception.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. Boatwright’s
motion to suppress the crack cocaine thus raises two questions: (1) did the officers’s actions rise
to the level of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) if Boatwright was seized, did the
police officers have reasonable suspicion to effect the seizure.
A seizure occurs when (1) a person obeys a police officer’s order to stop or (2) a person
that does not submit to an officer’s show of authority is physically restrained. United States v.
Swindle, 407 F.3d 562, 572 (2d Cir. 2005). A police officer’s order to stop constitutes a seizure
if “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave,” United States v.
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980), and the person complies with the officer’s order to stop,
Swindle, 407 F.3d at 572. A seizure implicating the protections of the Fourth Amendment also
occurs when a police officer, “by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way
restrained the liberty of a citizen such that he is not free to walk away.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 19.
There can be little question that Boatwright was seized. After entering the apartment
building and before reaching his friend’s apartment, Boatwright was approached by a police
officer carrying a Taser. He was then physically spun around and ordered to place his hands on
the wall. It is hard to imagine a more demonstrable show of authority and restraint of liberty.
Therefore, this Court should find that Boatwright was seized within the meaning of the Fourth
4

Amendment.1
This Court must next consider whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to seize
Boatwright. As noted above, Boatwright adamantly contradicts Officer Mills’s report. His
account, as given in his sworn affidavit, is strikingly at odds with the version related in Officer
Mills’s report. In contradistinction to Officer Mills’s account, Boatwright specifically recalls
entering the apartment building at 708 James Street at the invitation of his friend and resident
Jamie. Far from arguing, Boatwright and his friend Jamie had planned to visit in Jamie’s
apartment that evening. Consequently, Boatwright was lawfully in the building and, as such, in
no way committing criminal trespass under New York Penal Law.2
Prior to reaching Jamie’s apartment, however, Boatwright was confronted by a police
officer, who approached him with a drawn Taser weapon and quickly spun him around, ordering
Boatwright to place his hands against the wall. The officer then searched Boatwright’s person
based on nothing more than a hunch that he was in the building illegally. In short, Boatwright
contends that the officers, operating on nothing more than a hunch that he was engaged in illegal
activity, seized and searched him without reasonable suspicion. Consequently, this Court should
suppress the evidence collected as a result of his illegal seizure.
Even if accepting the narrative offered in James Mills’s police report, this Court should
That Boatwright was seized by the officers is true whether this Court accepts Officer1
Mills’s account or Boatwright’s own account of the events. According to Officer Mills’s
account, Boatwright was seized at the point in time when he attempted to leave the building but
was prevented from doing so by Officer Helterline.
Boatwright was eventually charged with Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree, which2
makes it a crime for a person to “knowingly enter[] or remain[] unlawfully in a building or upon
real property which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.”
N.Y. Penal Law § 140.10.
5

still suppress the evidence as directly resulting from an illegal seizure. Officer Mills claims that
he and Officer Helterline entered the apartment complex and immediately overheard two males
involved in a verbal dispute. Importantly, Officer Mills does not say which two males were
involved in the dispute, nor does he say that Mr. Boatwright was one of the males. Also absent is
any indication of what the two men were saying. Officer Mills then claims that he saw a male
walking into his apartment and another male trying to sell him something. Again, Officer Mills
account is sketchy at best. He never provides the identity of the male entering his apartment, nor
does he say which apartment the male entered. Curiously, even without identifying the male or
the apartment number, Officer Mills claims that the male entered “his” apartment. How he
knows this is a matter left entirely unaddressed. Also missing from Officer Mills account is any
indication of how he knew the male later identified as Boatwright was “trying to sell [the man
who entered an apartment] something,” especially as Officer Mills had just entered the building.
These statements are purely conclusory.
Taken as a whole, then, the facts as Officer Mills knew them upon entering the building
and seeing Mr. Boatwright were as follows: Officer Mills heard two unidentified men in what he
described as a verbal dispute and later saw one man, not necessarily one of the men involved in
the dispute, entering an apartment and another man, again not necessarily one of the men
involved in the dispute, in the apartment hallway. These facts hardly rise to the level of
reasonable suspicion.
Once his account is properly analyzed, it becomes apparent that Officer Mills relied on
two facts to seize Boatwright: (1) Boatwright was in an apartment which had “multiple trespass,
loitering and drug sale and drug usage complaints,” and (2) Boatwright, without being ordered to
6

stop, attempted to leave the building after another man walked into the apartment next to
Boatwright. The alleged fact that Boatwright was present in an apartment that Officer Mills
characterizes as having “multiple trespass, loitering and drug sale and drug usage complaints”
does not by itself support a finding of reasonable suspicion that Boatwright was engaged or about
to engage in criminal activity. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (“An
individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to
support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime. . . . the fact
that the stop occurred in a ‘high crime area’ [is] among the relevant contextual considerations in
a Terry analysis.”).
The same is true of the alleged fact that upon the officers’ entry into the building,
Boatwright attempted to leave. It is certainly true that flight in the face of lawful police authority
is a factor to consider in the totality of circumstances. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S.
119 (2000) (“[U]nprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate.”). It is equally true,
however, that unless ordered to stop, a person is free to leave the presence of police officers. See
Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.5(f) at 521-23 (4th ed. 2004) (collecting cases). See
also Tracey L. Meares & Bernard E. Harcourt, Transparent Adjudication and Social Science
Research in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 90 J.Crim.L & Criminology 733, 786-92 (2000)
(finding that while the ratio of stops to arrests in New York City is 9:1 generally, the ratio for
minorities in high crime areas is 45:1, which “is suggestive that in high-crime urban communities
where the population is disproportionately minority, flight from an identifiable police officers is a
very poor indicator that crime is afoot.”). Even taken together, the fact that Boatwright was in a
high crime area and attempted to leave the building after the person he was talking to entered his
7

apartment is hardly indicative of criminal activity. Moreover, Officer Mills provides no
indication that Boatwright’s apparent attempt to leave the building was in response to seeing two
police officers. Therefore, even if Officer Mills’s account is accepted, this Court should still
suppress the evidence collected pursuant to the illegal seizure.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, the all evidence obtained as a result of the seizure of
Meshiha Boatwright should be suppressed. Alternatively, Boatwright requests a hearing on the
issue.
ALEXANDER BUNIN
Federal Public Defender
By: S/James F. Greenwald
Asst. Federal Public Defender
Bar Roll No. 505652
Office of the Federal Public Defender
4 Clinton Square, 3 Floorrd
(315) 701-0080
TO: Ransom Reynolds, Esq., AUSA
Meshiha Boatwright
8

Motiontosuppressexamplesyracuse

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

En vedette

En vedette (11)

Similaire à Motiontosuppressexamplesyracuse

Similaire à Motiontosuppressexamplesyracuse (15)

Plus de jjohnsebastianattorney

Plus de jjohnsebastianattorney (13)

Dernier

Dernier (12)

Motiontosuppressexamplesyracuse