Tobias Boyland took an appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, after he was convicted of four counts of criminal possession of a weapon.
Boyland claimed that a rifle seized from a closet shouldn't have been introduced into evidence at his trial because it was found on the second floor of a two-story home and the warrant only authorized a search of the "lower floor" apartment.
Apparently, when officers arrived at the scene, they supposedly heard voices emanating from the upper floor, searched that area, and found the rifle.
Since that "protective sweep" was based on the belief there was an individual on the upper floor that posed a danger, the AD4 upheld the officers' conduct and affirmed the conviction.
Was the AD4 gunning for that guy?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Boyland