Opinion
No. CR-041760-23KN
08-13-2024
The People of the State of New York v. Thomas Lyons, Defendant
Prosecution: Kings County District Attorney's Office by ADA Rachel Kuper Defendant: The Legal Aid Society by Julie Krumwiede, Esq.
Unpublished Opinion
Prosecution: Kings County District Attorney's Office by ADA Rachel Kuper
Defendant: The Legal Aid Society by Julie Krumwiede, Esq.
Joshua Glick, J.
Defendant moves for an order of dismissal on speedy trial grounds alleging that omissions in the Prosecution's automatic discovery render their Certificate of Compliance (COC) and Statement of Readiness (SOR) illusory.
The Prosecution opposes.
For the reasons explained more fully herein, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint on November 13, 2023, charging PL §215.51(B)(IV), Criminal Contempt in the First Degree and related charges. On January 3, 2024, the Prosecution served and filed a Superseding Information (SSI) charging PL §§ 215.50(3) and 240.30(2), Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree and Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, respectively, and the sole felony count was dismissed. On February 6, 2024, the Prosecution served initial discovery. On March 26, 2024, the Prosecution served and filed their COC and SOR. On March 27, 2024, the Prosecution served and filed a Supplemental Certificate of Compliance (SCOC), along with two new Giglio materials and five Giglio materials that were intended to be shared with the COC but were unopenable due to a technological issue. On April 18, 2024, the Prosecution served and filed another SCOC with phone records. On June 7, 2024, the parties conferred about missing discovery. The same day, June 7, 2024, the Prosecution served and filed another SCOC with the Early Case Assessment Bureau (ECAB) Screening Sheet, six BCI/mugshot photographs, and unredacted versions of three Domain Awareness System (DAS) reports which had been shared in redacted form with the COC. On June 10, 2024, the parties appeared in Part DV1 and the Court set a motion schedule. On June 11, 2024, the Prosecution served and filed their final SCOC with the Command Log. Defendant filed the instant motion on June 25, 2024.
Defendant argues that the Prosecution's failure to disclose the following items of discovery prior to filing their COC renders it invalid: ECAB Screening Sheet; BCI/Mugshot photographs; unredacted DAS reports; Command Log; email correspondence between NYPD Field Intelligence Officer (FIO) and Detective Valentine, which is referenced in other items of discovery; body-worn camera (BWC) audit trails; and the radio run.
The Prosecution argues that their COC was filed in good faith after exercising due diligence and is thus valid under CPL §245.50. They concede that the ECAB Screening Sheet and BCI photos are subject to automatic discovery and were disclosed belatedly but point out that their omission was a benign error amid voluminous discovery and that they turned the materials over within an hour of Defendant alerting them. The Prosecution argues their redactions the DAS reports were proper, as the information covered does not relate to the subject matter of the case. They argue the Command Log is not subject to automatic discovery, as most of it does not relate to the subject matter of the case, and the portion that does is duplicative of the Prisoner Pedigree Card. Regardless of the Court's determination, the Prosecution argues they had a good faith basis to believe the redacted portions of the DAS reports and the Command Log were not discoverable, but turned over everything within an hour of Defendant's request. The Prosecution asserts that following the discovery conference, they promptly worked to obtain and disclose the email correspondence, although it does not relate to the subject matter of the case; the Prosecution intimates that the conferral email would only be relevant if the case involved guns, which it does not. They argue they have disclosed all discoverable portions of the BWC audit trails, and the remaining data does not relate to the subject matter of the case. They also argue that they reasonably relied on several decisions from courts of concurrent jurisdiction in deciding what portions were discoverable. Finally, as to the radio run, the Prosecution asserts first, that there was confusion between the parties as to what Defendant was requesting, and second, that they did not receive the correct file despite two requests to the NYPD because of a technological error of which they were unaware. However, they point out that most of the radio run does not relate to the subject matter of the case and the portion that does is duplicative of other discovery.
RELEVANT LAW
Pursuant to the automatic discovery provisions of CPL §245.20(1), the prosecution is required to disclose to the defendant, without motion, a list of enumerated items. Disclosure under this section is limited to "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction and control" (CPL §245.20[1]).
Once such disclosure is made, the prosecution must certify compliance with these discovery obligations by the service and filing of a COC (CPL §245.50[1]). The statute further provides that "[n]o adverse consequences to the prosecution shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances; but the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as provided in 245.80 of this Article" (Id.).
If the prosecution provides additional discovery after filing their COC but prior to trial, they must file a SCOC, detailing the additional materials (CPL §245.50[1]). In the SCOC, the prosecution must also detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so the court may evaluate whether the late disclosure affects the validity of the original COC (CPL §245.50[1-a]; see also People v Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200 [2023]). The filing of a SCOC shall not affect the validity of the original COC if the COC was filed in good faith after exercising due diligence (id.).
Pursuant to CPL §30.30(7)(c), where a defendant is charged with a felony complaint that is later reduced to a misdemeanor complaint, the prosecution must declare trial readiness within ninety days from the date the misdemeanor complaint is filed, so long as the aggregate period has not exceeded six months. To properly announce trial readiness, the prosecution must certify in good faith compliance with their discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §245.20 (CPL §30.30[5]). "Absent an individualized finding of special circumstances in the instant case by the court before which the charge is pending, the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial until it has filed a proper certificate [of compliance]" (CPL §245.50[3]). A defendant seeking dismissal pursuant to CPL §30.30 meets their initial burden by alleging that the prosecution has failed to declare readiness within the statutorily prescribed period (People v Beasley, 16 N.Y.3d 289, 292 [2011]).
Once the defendant has shown that there is more than ninety days of delay, the burden of proving the existence of excludable periods falls upon the prosecution (People v Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333, 349 [1980]). The prosecution must demonstrate that the disputed adjournments are excludable by reference to a statutory provision (People v. Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 77-78 [1995]; People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201 [1992]; People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859 [1986]; Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d at 348-350). The prosecution also bears the burden to clarify, on the record, the basis for an adjournment so that the motion court can determine to whom the adjournment should be charged (Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d at 215-216; People v Liotta, 79 N.Y.2d 841 [1992]; Berkowitz).
ANALYSIS
ECAB Screening Sheet and BCI Photos
It is undisputed that the ECAB Screening Sheet and BCI photos are subject to automatic discovery and were disclosed belatedly (CPL §245.20[1][e], [h]). The remaining question is whether their omission constitutes a lack of due diligence (People v Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200 [2023]). The Court finds that it does not. There is nothing before the Court to suggest the Prosecution acted in bad faith. On the contrary, they have disclosed over one hundred items of discovery thus far, including several which they argue are not subject to automatic discovery, but that Defendant has requested. Their prompt action upon realizing their mistake further demonstrates due diligence, turning over the missing materials within an hour of Defendant's alert. The discovery statue does not demand perfection, but rather due diligence and good faith (People v Bay, 41 N.Y.3d at 212). Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the Prosecution behaved reasonably and acted in good faith, despite their oversight (see People v Cooperman, 225 A.D.3d 1216 [2024] [declining to invalidate a COC where the prosecution did not disclose records related to emergency communications]; see also People v Watkins, 224 A.D.3d 1342 [2024] [declining to invalidate a COC where the prosecution believed no 911 call existed at the time they filed their COC, but later learned of one during a conversation with a witness and immediately therein obtained and disclosed it]).
Unredacted DAS Reports
To the extent the police use DAS Reports as an investigatory tool, they are subject to automatic discovery (CPL §245.20[1]). However, as the Prosecution has thoroughly explained, much of the information contained therein is unrelated to any given case and is often personal in nature. CPL §245.20(5) permits a party to withhold portions of a document that would otherwise be discoverable if, in his or her judgement, good cause exists for doing so. The Prosecution does not dispute the discoverability of the DAS Reports; rather, they argue their redactions were proper because they left visible all information related to the subject matter of the case and possible impeachment materials. For the DAS Report about the complainant, they redacted everything but information about Domestic Incident Reports, open cases, and prior convictions. For the DAS Report about Defendant, they redacted the section covering "Possible Associates." For the DAS Report about the location, they redacted all information from unrelated cases. However, upon Defendant's request, the Prosecution promptly provided unredacted copies.
Protecting the privacy of the complainant and others who are not part of the case is a worthy cause. The Court finds that the Prosecution properly conducted an individualized relevance analysis before applying redactions and acted reasonably (CPL §245.20[5]; People v Bay; 41 N.Y.3d 200).
Command Log
The Court finds that the Command Log is subject to automatic discovery (CPL §245.20[1][e]). The Prosecution does not dispute that the Command Log contains discoverable information; rather, they argue that such information is duplicative of other discovery. While this may be true, it does not bear on the document's discoverability. The Court is guided by CPL §245.20(7)'s presumption of openness. However, the Prosecution acted reasonably; that they came to a different conclusion after a good faith analysis does not undermine their diligence. Moreover, they acted in good faith in obtaining and disclosing the Command Log at Defendant's request.
Email Correspondence
The Court finds that the email correspondence is subject to automatic discovery (CPL §245.20[1][e]). As with the Command Log, the Court is guided by the presumption of openness (CPL §245.20[7]). As a general principle, communications between officers investigating a case are subject to automatic discovery. However, the Court finds that the Prosecution was reasonable in believing that it was not related to the subject matter of the case because this case is generally outside the purview of FIO conferrals. The Prosecution also exhibited diligence in obtaining the exchange and disclosing it at Defendant's request.
BWC Audit Trails
Although no appellate authority yet exists clarifying whether BWC audit trails are subject to automatic discovery, the Court is informed by the fact-finding hearing conducted in Queens County in the case of People v Ballard (82 Misc.3d 403 [2023]). At the hearing, Allison Arenson, Executive Agency Counsel and Director of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) BWC Unit Legal Bureau testified extensively about the nature, classification, and maintenance of BWC audit trails, according to established NYPD procedure. Ms. Arenson pointed to the NYPD Patrol Guide Section 212-213, which dictates procedures for using BWC, including when officers must activate them, when and how officers upload footage, how officers tag and categorize footage from a drop-down menu according to what is depicted, how officers can add their own freeform description and notes, and how officers share this information with prosecutors. Specifically, Ms. Arenson discussed how two categories of audit trails, "device" and "evidence" require input from officers.
CPL §245.20(1) requires that the prosecution disclose all information in their possession, custody, or control that is related to the subject matter of the case. The audit trails are statutorily in the Prosecution's possession (CPL §245.20[2]). Ms. Arenson's testimony makes abundantly clear that BWC audit trails meet this definition, as they contain information about the BWC created during this case (People v Ballard, 82 Misc.3d 403 [2023]). Conversely, if an officer fails to create audit trails, evidence thereof constitutes impeachment material, as it would represent a departure from NYPD Patrol Guide directives (Ballard, 82 Misc.3d 403). CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv) requires disclosure of impeachment materials for testifying prosecution witnesses. Whether by virtue of their existence or their absence, the Court finds that "device" and "evidence" BWC audit trails are subject to automatic discovery (CPL §245.20[1]; Ballard, 82 Misc.3d 403; People v Lyte, 2024 NY Slip Op. 50655[U]). However, given that this an evolving area of understanding and no conclusive appellate authority exists, the Prosecution's statutory interpretation to the contrary was reasonable. They are ordered to disclose the audit trails within thirty days (CPL §245.20[1]).
Radio Run
The Court finds that the radio run is subject to automatic discovery (CPL §245.20[1][e], [g]). It is immaterial that only a portion of the full audio file is related to this case; the file is still discoverable. Similarly, it does not matter that the information contained therein is duplicative of other materials. The Court is left to consider whether this omission constitutes a lack of diligence or good faith. In short, it does not.
As previously discussed, the Prosecution has provided more than one hundred items of discovery in this case. As they have obtained additional materials, they have promptly disclosed them. Once they realized their mistake in failing to provide the radio run, they made several attempts to contact NYPD to remedy the situation and turned over the file as soon as they could. In considering the full picture of the Prosecution's actions, the Court can only conclude that this was a benign mistake and not evidence of bad faith dealing. Moreover, CPL §245.35(1) requires the parties to diligently confer to attempt to reach a resolution about disputed materials prior to seeking a court order. The Court credits the Prosecution's assertion that the confusion underlying this item of discovery could have been cleared up if Defendant, through counsel, had responded to the Prosecution's conferral email; this is especially poignant given that the Prosecution disclosed everything else Defendant requested in their conferral. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that this oversight does not affect the validity of the COC.
Speedy Trial
It is undisputed that Defendant was arraigned on November 13, 2023, and that the case was reduced from a felony to misdemeanor complaint on January 3, 2024. The Prosecution filed their COC and SOR in good faith on March 26, 2024, after exercising due diligence. The Prosecution is charged eighty-three days.
CONCLUSION
Because the Prosecution has not exceeded their ninety-day speedy trial limitation since the case was reduced, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied (CPL §30.30[1][b]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.