USA v. Crapsi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JOSEPH L. CRAPSI,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 1:24-cr-138-LJV-JJM
Defendant Joseph Crapsi is charged in a one count Indictment [16]1 with aiming a
laser pointer at an aircraft on or about March 1, 2024, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §39A(a). He now
moves [33] to suppress evidence obtained from his warrantless arrest, the warrantless search of
his bedroom at 304 Nagel Drive, Cheektowaga, New York on that date, and statements given by
him to law enforcement officers on March 1 and 15, 2024.2 The motion has been referred to me
by District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo for initial consideration [18]. Having considered the
parties’ submissions [33-37, 40, 42, 43] and heard oral argument on May 6, 2025 [39], for the
following reasons I recommend that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
The events giving rise to the motion are captured on video [36]. Shortly after
midnight on March 1, 2024, the Cheektowaga Police Department (“CPD”) received a complaint
from Crapsi’s neighbor, stating that someone was pointing a laser into his house. CPD officers
1 	Bracketed references are to CM/ECF docket entries (unless otherwise noted). Page references are
to CM/ECF pagination (upper right corner of the page).
2 	Although the motion also sought other forms of relief, the parties agree that those issue s have
been resolved.
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 1 of 7

- 2-
interviewed the neighbor, who told them that in addition to the laser being pointed into his home,
the laser had also been pointed at the sky. He identified the specific window in Crapsi’s house
from which he saw the laser. Government’s Response [35] at 1.
CPD officers went to Crapsi’s house and knocked on the door. Crapsi’s
stepfather came to the door, and when the officers told him of the reports of a green laser being
shined from his house, he invited the officers to come in. The officers waited in the entryway as
he went upstairs to get Crapsi. Crapsi came downstairs with his stepfather and used his cell
phone to communicate with the CPD officers, who warned him not to point the laser when he
used it. Id. at 2.3
At about the same time, the Niagara Frontier Transit Authority (“NFTA”)
received a report from the pilot of Delta Flight 2334 that a green laser coming from the direction
of Crapsi’s house had repeatedly been pointed at his aircraft as he was landing. Id. He reported
having seen the laser. Government’s Response [35] at 2. The CPD officers then returned to
Crapsi’s house, where they were joined by NFTA police officers. Id. at 2-3. The officers shared
what they had learned with each other and concluded they had probable cause to arrest Crapsi.
Id. at 3. They again knocked on the front door, and Crapsi’s stepfather again invited them into
the house, whereupon Crapsi came downstairs. Id.
One officer asked if they could look in his bedroom to see if he had a laser, but
Crapsi did not respond. They asked him to get his clothes, and followed him and his mother up
the stairs and into his bedroom. While Crapsi looked for his clothes, they looked around his room
with flashlights. Id. at 4. After finding his clothes, Crapsi left the bedroom to go to the bathroom,
3 	Crapsi is deaf. Crapsi Declaration [34], ¶7.
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 2 of 7

- 3-
and one officer remained in the bedroom with his mother. Crapsi then returned to the room to get
his clothes, as officers remained at his doorway. After he left the room again, the officers in the
room found the laser lying on his bed, and his mother gave it to them. Id.
Crapsi was then arrested and taken to a booking room at the NFTA police station.
Remained seated, the officers removed the laser from its box, shined the laser away from him,
and discussed it among themselves. Without being asked, Crapsi used his hands to show them
how to use the device. They gave it to him and he demonstrated how to use or adjust it. Id. at 18.
While Crapsi also argues that certain statements taken from him on March 1 and
again on March 15, 2024 were improperly obtained, the timing and content of those statements is
difficult to discern from the videos.
ANALYSIS
Although Crapsi argues that police lacked probable cause to arrest him (Morrissey
Affirmation [33] at 10-11) I disagree. The statements given his neighbor and the Delta Airlines
pilot, coupled with the fact that on the first visit to his home the CPD officers discussed the laser
with him, created probable cause justifying his arrest.
However, that fact does not itself justify the search of his bedroom. “The Fourth
Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’ . . . . Because the home is the first among
equals in the Fourth Amendment’s eyes . . . warrantless searches of a private dwelling are
presumptively unreasonable.” Alexander v. City of Syracuse, 132 F.4th 129, 146 (2d Cir. 2025).
“To surmount this presumption of unreasonableness, the government must show that one of the
reasonable exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.” Id. at 147.
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 3 of 7

- 4-
While admitting that it had not obtained a warrant for the search of Crapsi’s
bedroom, the government relies on two exceptions to the warrant requirement: first, that
“officers lawfully entered the defendant’s bedroom based on the exigent needs to (1) prevent the
defendant from destroying evidence; and (2) prevent the defendant from posing a continuing risk
to aircraft”, and secondly, that Crapsi’s “mother had both actual and apparent authority to give
the officers implied consent to search [his] bedroom”. Government’s Response [35] at 5. For the
following reasons, the government has failed to demonstrate the applicability of either exception
to the warrant requirement.
Exigent Circumstances
“The exigent circumstances exception applies when the exigencies of the situation
make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively
reasonable . . . . Intended for ‘now or never’ situations, the exception authorizes warrantless
entries to . . . prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, or prevent a suspect’s escape when
there is no time to secure a warrant.” Alexander, 132 F.4th at 147.
“Because this exception must be jealously and carefully drawn . . . officers bear a
heavy burden to show that an exigency justified a warrantless entry . . . . Additionally, any
warrantless searches and seizures must be strictly circumscribed to ameliorate the exigency at
issue . . . . In other words, once the exigency ends, any additional warrantless search or seizure is
no longer permissible.” Id. “If an officer invokes the exigent circumstances exception to justify a
warrantless entry to search for and preserve evidence, the bar is high. The threatened destruction
of evidence must be imminent . . . . For that reason, the exigent circumstances exception
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 4 of 7

- 5-
typically applies when an officer has reason to believe evidence inside a private dwelling is
being destroyed or removed in real time.” Id. at 148 (emphasis in original).
No such “real time” exigencies existed at the time of the search. By then, Crapsi
had already left his bedroom, eliminating the chance that he could destroy the laser or point it at
an aircraft. The government fails to explain why officers could not have secured the bedroom
until they obtained a search warrant, either in person or by telephone. “Absent exigent
circumstances, a warrantless entry to search for weapons or contraband is unconstitutional even
when a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that incriminating
evidence will be found within.” Id. at 149-50. Therefore, this exception to the warrant
requirement is inapplicable.
Implied Consent
While admitting that “no one expressly consented to a search of the defendant’s
bedroom” (government’s Response [35] at 15), the government argues that “[o]fficers’ entry into
the defendant’s bedroom, and their subsequent search for the laser pointer, was based on implied
consent from the defendant’s mother, who had actual authority or - at the very least - apparent
authority to consent to the search”. Id. at 14.
However, “consent must be a product of [an] individual’s free and unconstrained
choice, rather than a mere acquiescence in a show of authority . . . . Determination of whether
such an individual has so consented requires a fact-based inquiry that considers the totality of all
the circumstances”. United States v. Iverson, 897 F.3d 450, 458 (2d Cir. 2018). Since the
government has failed to demonstrate that Crapsi’s mother’s alleged consent was “free and
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 5 of 7

- 6-
unconstrained” by the presence of the several officers who followed her up the stairs and entered
the bedroom with first obtaining her permission, its reliance upon implied consent is unfounded.
Therefore, I conclude that the laser pointer seized from Crapsi’s bedroom was
obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and should be suppressed. For the same reason,
his nonverbal demonstration of its operation to NFTA officers on the morning of March 1, 2024
should likewise be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree, since they should not have had the
pointer in the first place. However, since Crapsi fails to sufficiently identify the other alleged
statements which he seeks to suppress, his request for that relief should be denied.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I recommend that Crapsi’s motion [33] be granted in part and
denied in part. Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Vilardo, any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed with the clerk of this court by June 23, 2025. Requests for
extension of this deadline must be made to Judge Vilardo. Any party who “fails to object timely .
. . waives any right to further judicial review of [this] decision”. 	Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838
F. 2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).
Moreover, the district judge will ordinarily refuse to consider de novo arguments,
case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but were not, presented to the
magistrate judge in the first instance. Patterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal
Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F. 2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988).
The parties are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 59(b)(2) of this Court’s Local
Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[w]ritten objections . . . shall specifically identify the portions of
the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 6 of 7

-7 -
objection, and shall be supported by legal authority”, and pursuant to Local Rule 59(b)(3), the
objections must include “a written statement either certifying that the objections do not raise new
legal/factual arguments, or identifying the new arguments and explaining why they were not
raised to the Magistrate Judge”. Failure to comply with these provisions may result in the
district judge’s refusal to consider the objection.
Dated: June 6, 2025
/s/ Jeremiah J. McCarthy__________
JEREMIAH J. MCCARTHY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cr-00138-LJV-JJM Document 46 Filed 06/09/25 Page 7 of 7