Court of Appeals Unanimously Reverses Conviction and Suppresses Statement Due to Violation of Fellow Officer Rule
In February 2017, police officers in Queens arrested Mr. Palacios based on a “probable cause I-card” issued by another detective. Arrested and in custody at the precinct, Mr. Palacios made an incriminating statement and was charged with two counts.
At the pretrial suppression hearing, defense counsel moved to suppress the statement as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. The sole prosecution witness at the hearing was the detective who created the I-card. He testified about the conversation he had with a complaining witness and his creation of the I-card, but the I-card was not introduced into evidence. Nor did the detective explain what information the I-card contained, how other officers were able to access it, or whether the arresting officers had actually done so. The detective also failed to testify about the circumstances of Mr. Palacio’s arrest besides that he was apprehended by patrol and brought to the precinct. The suppression court denied the motion, concluding there was probable cause to arrest under the fellow officer rule. Mr. Palacios subsequently pled guilty.
The Appellate Division affirmed. It determined there was an “inference” Mr. Palacios was arrested with probable cause by another officer, based on the issuance of the I-card. The Appellate Division further found that the defense “offered no evidence to support his speculation to the contrary.”
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court noted that the fellow officer rule permits an arresting officer who lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause to effectuate a lawful arrest. The rule requires a showing that the arresting officer acted upon the direction of or as a result of communication with another officer who had the information sufficient to constitute probable cause. Accordingly, the fellow officer rule requires that the prosecution adduce evidence that the arresting officer received such information and relied upon it in making the arrest. Here, the prosecution failed to do so. There was no direct evidence that prior to arresting Mr. Palacios, the arresting officers were aware of the I-card and relied upon it. Nor was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to meet this standard. Absent the required showing of probable cause, Mr. Palacios’s statement was suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest and the conviction was reversed.
David Fitzmaurice represented Mr. Palacios