Opinion ID: 6118765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Police Radio Exchanges

Text: Within minutes, at approximately 8:52 p.m., a New York State Police radio dispatcher put out an announcement calling for officers to respond to the 911 caller’s 3469 Lexington Avenue address. The dispatcher stated that “a menacing [had] occurred in the ShopRite parking lot” and that the suspects were “two black males” in “a black Camaro” who had “displayed a handgun.” Joint App’x, Disc Ex. 2A at 0:15–0:40. The dispatcher directed officers to “start over to 3469 Lexington” because the “two suspects are possibly en route” to that location, and “they’re looking for [name of caller’s son] at that location.” Id. at 0:08–0:12, 0:20–0:24, 0:39–0:42. Moments later, a Westchester County Police dispatcher contacted County Police Officer David DiRienzo, directing him to go to 3469 Lexington Avenue to support State troopers investigating a “menacing with a handgun at ShopRite.” Joint App’x, Disc Ex. 2C were “over here on the complex where I live”), and id. at 2:08 (stating that she “see[s] a black car” in her parking lot), with id. at 0:54 (stating that she believes men “should be in the parking lot waiting”), and id. at 1:29 (stating that she “has to get home” and is “on [her] way home”), and id. at 3:28 (confirming that she is en route home and agreeing to follow operator’s instruction to delay going home to let police arrive first). The district court’s reliance on the first set of statements in its findings of fact makes no difference on this appeal because none of the officers whose conduct is here at issue heard the 911 call, and, thus, as Patterson himself acknowledges, the call’s contents cannot be imputed to them. See United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130, 137–38 (2d Cir. 2001). What matters is the information the responding officers thereafter received from police dispatchers and the actions the officers took in response, which we now proceed to detail. 5 at 0:12–0:19. 4 The dispatcher stated that “the suspect vehicle”— described as “a black Camaro” carrying “two black males”—was believed to be “en route over” to the Lexington Avenue location. Id. at 0:19–0:25. Confirming these instructions, DiRienzo radioed back, “black Camaro, two black males, menacing with a handgun at the ShopRite.” Id. at 0:25–0:30. A Westchester County dispatcher then immediately instructed County Police Officer Adam Wirth to assist DiRienzo, who was “heading over to 3469 Lexington Avenue for a menacing with a handgun,” explaining that “wanted is a black Camaro [and] two black males.” Joint App’x, Disc Ex. 2D at 0:37–0:45. When DiRienzo arrived at 3469 Lexington Avenue, he saw two State troopers speaking with a person whom he understood to be the 911 caller, but he observed no black Camaro at the scene. At approximately 8:57 p.m., DiRienzo radioed that he was leaving 3469 Lexington Avenue and going to “canvass[] Route 6”—the main road between the Cortlandt ShopRite and 3469 Lexington Avenue, where the victim resided, a distance of approximately one mile—for “a black two-door Camaro.” Joint App’x, Disc Ex. 2E at 0:13–0:20. At the suppression hearing, DiRienzo testified that he headed toward the ShopRite because that is where the reported menacing had occurred, and he knew from experience that radio miscommunications can occur when multiple locations are broadcast. Meanwhile, Wirth, having heard DiRienzo’s communication, reported by radio that he was already on Route 6. 4 Police radio communications in Westchester County, whether originating with the New York State Police or the Westchester County Police Department, are audible to officers of both departments. 6 Minutes later, at approximately 9:01 p.m., a State trooper radioed an updated description of the suspect vehicle as a “black or possibly dark gray . . . Challenger or a Camaro.” Joint App’x, Disc Ex. 2B at 0:05–0:12. 5 Although a State Police dispatcher repeated—with some modification—that the suspect vehicle was “a dark colored or dark gray Challenger or Camaro,” id. at 0:18–0:22, DiRienzo radioed that he “copied” that the suspects were in “a dark gray or black Camaro or Challenger,” Joint App’x, Disc Ex. 2G at 0:11–0:17, just as the reporting trooper had stated. At that point, Officer Wirth reported that he was then “behind a black Camaro . . . going westbound” on Route 6. Id. at 0:22–0:30. At the suppression hearing, Wirth testified that he had first spotted the Camaro leaving the ShopRite parking lot and turning onto Route 6.6 He testified that he rarely saw Camaros or Challengers on local roads during the winter and had seen no other such cars that night, when 5 As the government notes, the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger are “somewhat similar” looking cars. Appellant Br. at 4 n.2. And, as the district court observed, a black car might appear gray in winter as a result of road spray from materials put down to melt snow and minimize icing. 6Apparently, the Camaro had left and then returned to the ShopRite parking lot sometime after the reported menacing to retrieve a cell phone that Patterson had dropped in the ShopRite parking lot. Because the fact that the Camaro had left and returned to the ShopRite was unknown to any officers at the time of their challenged conduct on January 30, 2019, it does not factor into our consideration of this appeal. 7 roads were slick, snow was on the ground, and traffic was generally lighter than normal. 7 Upon hearing Wirth’s communication, DiRienzo promptly drove to his fellow officer’s stated location and joined in following the Camaro. Unable to see inside the Camaro to determine the number or identity of the occupants, the officers, communicating by radio, decided to stop the vehicle. Seeing the Camaro’s turn signal and brake lights illuminate near a Mobil gasoline station, Wirth turned on his vehicle’s flashing emergency lights to signal the Camaro’s driver—subsequently identified as defendant Patterson—to pull over. The driver did so, stopping at one of the station’s gas pumps at approximately 9:02 p.m. The ensuing encounter was videotaped from various angles by police cameras and the Mobil station’s security cameras. 8 7 At the suppression hearing, the government introduced evidence indicating that only 0.11%—approximately 1 in 1,000—of all cars registered in Westchester County are black or gray Camaros or Challengers. While the government does not contend that the officers were aware of this statistic at the time of the events at issue, it maintains that the statistic supports the officers’ reported experience from their patrols. Cf. Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183, 1188 (2020) (recognizing that “[e]mpirical studies [can] demonstrate what common experience readily reveals,” there in context of drivers with revoked licenses operating motor vehicles). 8 At the suppression hearing, DiRienzo testified that the stopped Camaro “[a]ppeared to be black, but I guess it was a dark gray.” Joint App’x at 49. The district court also subsequently described the vehicle as “dark-colored, black or dark gray.” Id. at 249. We cannot ourselves determine the car’s color from the record evidence, but it makes no difference to our analysis on this appeal. 8 III. Detention of the Camaro and Its Occupants at the Mobil Station With the Camaro then stopped at a gas pump, Officer Wirth, Officer DiRienzo, and State Police Trooper Coglitore, who had also joined in following the Camaro, stopped their three vehicles—all now displaying flashing lights—a short distance behind the Camaro, effectively blocking the Route 6 entrance/exit point through which the vehicle had just entered the station. The Camaro’s front-facing access to the station’s Locust Avenue entrance/exit was unimpeded. Almost immediately, the three officers exited their vehicles, drew their firearms—handguns for DiRienzo and Wirth, an AR-15 rifle for Coglitore—and pointed them at the Camaro. 9 At the suppression hearing, Wirth and DiRienzo testified that they drew and raised their weapons because the crime under investigation was menacing with a firearm, which by its nature presented a risk of the Camaro’s occupants shooting an officer. After brief consultation, Wirth and DiRienzo used their cars’ public address systems to order the Camaro’s still-unknown occupants to get out of the vehicle with their hands up. DiRienzo additionally told the occupants to roll down the car’s windows and to 9In the videotape, it appears that DiRienzo and Coglitore pointed their weapons at the Camaro while Wirth held his gun at his side. Nevertheless, at the suppression hearing, Wirth testified that he “point[ed his] gun in the direction of the Camaro.” Joint App’x at 132. Thus, we defer to the district court’s finding that all three of these officers pointed their firearms at the Camaro. 9 place the car keys on the roof. 10 After the occupants failed to respond to any of these orders, Wirth—concerned that amplification might have distorted his order—shouted toward the Camaro for the occupants to exit the car with their hands up. DiRienzo testified that the driver of the Camaro (i.e., Patterson), rather than follow these instructions, appeared to reach around the car’s interior, including behind the front seats and under the steering wheel, as if preparing or hiding something, possibly a firearm. Moments later—approximately one minute and fifteen seconds after the Camaro was first stopped at the gas station—the passengerside occupant, a black man subsequently identified as Deshawn Smalls, exited the car. Seconds later, the Camaro’s driver, Patterson, also a black man, did likewise. Initially, the two men followed the officers’ instructions for Smalls to walk to the front of the vehicle and to place his hands on the car hood and for Patterson to walk to the rear of the vehicle and to place his hands on the trunk. At about this time, a second State trooper arrived at the scene, exited his vehicle, and also pointed his firearm at the Camaro. While the two State troopers stood armed guard, DiRienzo and Wirth moved toward the Camaro. DiRienzo, who had now holstered his weapon, attempted to handcuff Patterson, but Patterson broke free and ran away. As DiRienzo and one of the troopers chased Patterson, DiRienzo thought he saw something in Patterson’s hand. DiRienzo fired his taser but missed Patterson, who proceeded to jump 10 The district court considered this direction somewhat inconsistent with the officers’ orders to exit the car. For purposes of this appeal, we accept this characterization. 10 a fence and hide in nearby woods before being apprehended some fifteen minutes later. While Patterson was on the run, Wirth holstered his firearm and handcuffed Smalls, at which point the State trooper who remained at the scene also holstered his weapon. Wirth then looked into the Camaro, opened the glove compartment, and seized therefrom the handgun that is the subject of the possession charge in this case: a fully loaded, black Makarov pistol. 11 Following Patterson’s capture, Smalls and Patterson were formally arrested, and the Camaro was impounded by State Police who, pursuant to department procedures, conducted an inventory search of its contents.