People v. Townes, 77 N.Y.2d 582 (1991)
An individual’s actions during an illegal stop can attenuate the taint of the illegality if those actions are not immediate, spontaneous, and proportionate to the officer’s actions, thus providing an independent basis for arrest and the admissibility of evidence seized incident to that arrest; however, Penal Law § 35.27 relates only to the defense of justification and does not create a new substantive crime.
Summary
This case concerns the attenuation doctrine in the context of an illegal stop. An officer stopped Townes based on an anonymous tip. Townes resisted, striking the officer. A search incident to the arrest revealed cocaine. The New York Court of Appeals held that the lower courts correctly suppressed the evidence. The Court reasoned that Townes’s actions were immediate, spontaneous, and proportionate to the officer’s unlawful attempt to detain him, and thus did not attenuate the taint of the illegal stop. The court clarified that Penal Law § 35.27 (the “no-sock” law) does not create a substantive crime; it only pertains to the defense of justification.
Facts
An anonymous caller reported that a medium-build, dark-complexioned black male was selling narcotics at a specific intersection in Rochester.
An officer was dispatched and observed Townes, who matched the description, at the intersection.
As Townes crossed the street, the officer stopped his vehicle and motioned him on, but Townes stopped and the officer exited his car and asked Townes to stop.
Townes refused, stating, “For what? I’m walking.”
The officer approached Townes, attempting to restrain him; Townes resisted and started to run.
The officer grabbed Townes, who struck the officer in the face before eventually being handcuffed.
A pat-down search revealed four packets of cocaine.
Procedural History
Townes was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, resisting arrest, and second-degree assault.
The hearing court granted Townes’s motion to suppress the cocaine, finding the stop unlawful and Townes’s actions proportionate to the attempted restraint.
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Penal Law § 35.27 did not provide a substantive basis for the arrest.
The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Townes’s act of striking the officer attenuated the taint of the illegal stop, thereby justifying the arrest and search.
2. Whether Penal Law § 35.27 could serve as the basis for a lawful arrest and seizure of contraband, despite the unlawful initial stop.
Holding
1. No, because there was evidence in the record to support the determination of the lower courts that defendant’s action in striking the officer was “immediate, spontaneous, and proportionate to the officer’s attempt to lay hands on him when he refused to stop” and thus, was not sufficient to attenuate the unlawful stop so as to render the arrest and seizure of the contraband lawful.
2. No, because that statute concerns the defense of justification and does not create a new substantive crime.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of evidence, distinguishing the case from People v. Townes, 41 N.Y.2d 97, where the defendant’s act of firing a gun at an officer attenuated the initial illegality. The Court emphasized that the attenuation doctrine requires evaluating whether the connection between the unlawful police conduct and the discovery of evidence is sufficiently weakened. Here, the Court deferred to the lower courts’ factual finding that Townes’s response was “immediate, spontaneous, and proportionate” to the officer’s attempt to lay hands on him. Because of that, the action was not an independent crime that would justify the arrest.
The Court further clarified that Penal Law § 35.27, often called the “no-sock law,” provides only a defense to a charge of assault; it does not create a new crime that could independently justify an arrest. Thus, even if Townes violated § 35.27, it could not retroactively legalize the illegal arrest. The Court reasoned that allowing the statute to validate an otherwise unlawful arrest would circumvent the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Court cited People v. Harewood, 63 A.D.2d 876 and People v. Simms, 36 A.D.2d 23, 24, reinforcing the principle that § 35.27 is a justification defense, not a source of substantive criminal liability. The practical implication is that police cannot retroactively justify an illegal stop based on a suspect’s reactive resistance if that resistance is deemed an immediate and proportionate response to the unlawful police action.