Court Opinion

ID: 9782610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:00:09.473469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:06.357480
License: Public Domain

Jones, J.
(concurring in People v Brannon and dissenting in People v Fernandez). Because a gravity knife can be indistinguishable from a lawful knife in appearance, and its illegality can only be ascertained by its operation, I would hold that a stop and frisk based on the mere observance of a portion of a knife and the experience of the arresting police officer is not supported by sufficient reasonable suspicion. Therefore, I concur with the majority’s result in People v Brannon, but respectfully dissent in People v Fernandez, for the reasons below.
Penal Law § 265.00 (5) defines a gravity knife as: “any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.”
By its very definition, a gravity knife cannot be identified until it is operated because there is no inherently distinguishing mark or physical trait that would allow for the plain identification of a gravity knife. The only manner in which the possession of a gravity knife can be confirmed is when the knife is activated through “the force of gravity” or “centrifugal force.” Therefore, until a gravity knife is operated, it can be easily mistaken for a pocketknife or folding knife (neither of which is unlawful to carry).
In Brannon, on September 8, 2006, while dispersing some young children from a school yard, Officer Blake testified that his suspicions were alerted when defendant “furtively mov[ed]” towards the curb to cross the street, an action he interpreted as an attempt to avoid the police (even though defendant never crossed the street). When he further observed defendant, the officer stated that he noticed a “[h]alf to a quarter of an inch” of “the back portion of the knife where the joint is. Where the blade extends from the handle,” and concluded that defendant was carrying a “typical pocket knife.” Based on these observations, Officer Blake forcibly stopped defendant when, without inquiry, he ordered him to place his hands against a fence. The pocketknife was tested and found to be a gravity knife.
In the accompanying case of Fernandez, while on patrol in a police vehicle on February 24, 2007, at 12:26 a.m., from 10 to 15 feet away, Officer Hoffman observed defendant with a knife clipped in his front right pants pocket. Specifically, Officer *604Hoffman testified that he had seen “the clip, observed the top head of the knife and shiny metal,” leading him to believe that defendant was carrying a gravity knife. The weapon was confirmed to be a gravity knife when the officer recovered it and “flick[ed] the knife open.”
The majority distinguishes these two cases on the fact that the officer in Brannon testified that he observed a pocketknife while the officer in Fernandez testified to a belief that he had seen a gravity knife, and had training and experience based on 600 to 700 arrests, with approximately half of those arrests involving gravity knives. However, this minimal distinction is of no moment where both stops were premised on insufficient reasonable suspicion due to the lack of inherent criminality in the mere physical appearance of a gravity knife.
In People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210 [1976]), we outlined various levels of police interaction with the public and the accompanying standards required to justify such intrusion. To perform a lawful, level-three stop and frisk, a police officer must have “a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor” (id. at 223). While I acknowledge that reasonable suspicion does not require absolute certainty of a crime, it is equally true that “innocuous behavior” or conduct capable of innocent interpretation cannot serve as a basis for reasonable suspicion (see id. at 216). Thus, since a gravity knife can bear an unremarkable superficial similarity to other lawful knives and its illegality cannot be confirmed until its operation, the mere possession of a gravity knife is conduct susceptible to innocent interpretation.
The absence of an identifying physical trait makes it equally likely that an individual possesses a lawful knife as he or she may possess an unlawful one, and there is nothing within the respective records of these cases to indicate that the physical characteristics the officers observed were unique to, and shared by, gravity knives. That the officers viewed a clip, a metal portion, and a handle joint of a knife protruding from defendants’ pockets is not so uncommon and innately criminal as to differentiate it from the lawful possession of a knife in one’s own pants pocket. In fact, in Fernandez, the only testimony demonstrating any distinction between an illegal gravity knife and a lawful one is the difference in operation: “[A] [fjolding knife does not lock in place, a gravity knife does.” The reasonable *605inference to be drawn from this testimony is that the criminality of a gravity knife can only be verified upon inspection. And without a more specific basis, the observations here, based solely on police training and experience, border on “hunches” which can never constitute reasonable suspicion (Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 22 [1968]).
Additionally, a forcible stop is only justified so long as there are “specific and articulable facts winch, alone with any logical deductions, reasonably prompted th[e] intrusion” (People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106, 113 [1975]). In these cases, there were no specific facts supporting the beliefs that defendants were carrying gravity knives, and justifying the forcible stops. In Brannon, the officer simply had no basis to conclude that defendant was carrying a gravity knife. The allegedly “furtive” movement of defendant and the mere observation of a knife believed to be a “typical pocket knife” did not supply the reasonable suspicion needed to justify the forcible stop (see People v Mendez, 68 AD3d 662, 662-663 [1st Dept 2009]). Similarly, in Fernandez, the officer’s testimony was conclusory as there were no specific facts to support his belief that defendant possessed a gravity knife. The mere fact that a knife may have a clip or has a metal portion cannot be considered an identifying trait of gravity knives. Rather, too much credence is given to the training and experience of the officer without evidence of specific, articulable facts indicating the presence of a gravity knife. Quite simply, the only observation the officer was justified in making was that defendant was carrying a knife; there was no other indication of criminality. Without further evidence that the knife in question possessed intrinsic characteristics that would signal its illegality as a gravity knife, there was no basis to escalate the observation to a forcible stop of defendant.
The likely result of the majority’s holding is that it will establish a catechism for the admission of gravity knife evidence, permitting the admission of evidence with a minimal basis for reasonable suspicion—the conclusory observations of a police officer. The finding of reasonable suspicion based solely on testimony regarding the training and experience of the officer and the belief that a gravity knife was present is highlighted in recent cases. In Mendez, the Appellate Division held that evidence should be suppressed because the officer’s testimony indicated a belief that the defendant was carrying a “folding knife” (68 AD3d at 662-663), whereas in People v Neal (79 AD3d 523 [1st Dept 2010]) and People v Herrera (76 AD3d 891 [1st *606Dept 2010]), the court concluded there was reasonable suspicion because training and experience led the respective officers to believe it was “more likely than not it was a gravity knife” (Neal, 79 AD3d at 523).
The weight given to an officer’s training and experience is evident here, in Brannon and Fernandez, as both officers similarly observed minute, innocuous portions of a knife, but concluded differently on the criminal nature of the weapons. In my view, had the officer in Brannon merely testified that he believed a gravity knife, and not a pocketknife, was present, then the outcome in that case would have been different. Instead of requiring the police and the People to articulate a specific factual basis for reasonable suspicion justifying these stops, in these types of cases, prosecutors will now be encouraged to present police officers who can describe their training and experience with gravity knives, and testify that a gravity knife, and not a “typical pocket knife,” was observed. Given the highly intrusive nature of these stops, the acceptance of these conclusory statements at Mapp/Dunaway hearings as a minimal basis for the admission of evidence poses a significant danger (People v Howard, 147 AD2d 177, 181-182 [1st Dept 1989] [court held that conclusory statements by officers at hearings were “rote recital(s) of the words deemed necessary to retroactively validate a patently improper search”]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read and Smith concur with Judge Pigott; Judge Jones concurs in result in a separate opinion.
In People v Brannon: Order reversed, etc.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read and Smith concur with Judge Pigott; Judge Jones dissents in a separate opinion.
In People v Fernandez: Order affirmed.