Defendant was seen at 1 am in a high crime area on the street in the Bronx talking with three others. The officer claimed he could see him adjusting his waistband, suggesting a gun. Collectively, the court simply doesn’t believe the officer’s testimony was more than a hunch of potential criminal activity because of vagaries in where he was sitting in the unmarked car to make observations then contradictions in the testimony of following defendant. The government has the burden of proof it was more than a hunch, and it fails to convince the court. United States v. Jarvis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73435 (S.D. N.Y. Apr. 30, 2019).
Defendant’s accepting a package subject to an anticipatory search warrant was sufficient possession for the triggering event. State v. Bronson, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 ( May 2, 2019).*