NEW CITY, N.Y. — Pro football great Lawrence Taylor says the rape indictment against him should be dismissed because police did not have a warrant when they arrested him.
In a wide-ranging motion, Taylor’s lawyer is seeking to at least suppress any statements Taylor made when he was arrested and to rule out any evidence taken from him.
Taylor, 51, signed an autograph, but he did not speak, on his way into the courthouse Tuesday for a hearing before state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly. Lawyers spent most of their time in a sidebar discussion with Kelly. Taylor’s next appearance will be Dec. 23.
The former NFL MVP is accused of having sex with a 16-year-old prostitute in a suburban New York hotel room in May. He allegedly paid the Bronx runaway $300. He has pleaded not guilty to third-degree rape, patronizing a prostitute, sexual abuse and endangering a child.
Defense attorney Arthur Aidala’s motion alleges that Taylor’s arrest violated his rights. It says he was “alone, sleeping in his hotel room” when police entered without a warrant and without his permission.
Rockland County prosecutors have not yet responded to the motion.
Aidala asked the judge to dismiss the indictment, suppress all evidence, suppress any Taylor statements, prohibit the identification of Taylor at trial and prohibit any cross-examination of Taylor about any “past crimes or bad acts.” It also asks the judge to examine the grand jury minutes because Taylor believes that will show “the illegality and insufficency of the evidence.”
Court papers in a separate but related case say Taylor admitted to sex acts with the girl but was told she was 19.
Such a sweeping motion, known as an “omnibus” motion, is often used early in a case by a defense team to learn as much about the prosecution’s evidence as possible.
Taylor, who led the New York Giants to Super Bowl titles in 1987 and 1991, was arrested May 6 after the girl’s uncle contacted New York City police. Officers from Ramapo woke him at a Holiday Inn in Montebello.
The motion says police “did not have a warrant based on probable cause to either arrest Mr. Taylor or conduct a search and seizure” and that the circumstances did not allow entry without a warrant.
“No lives were in danger, nor was the defendant’s escape imminent,” making any seizure of property improper and anything Taylor said to a public official inadmissible, even if he was read his rights, Aidala wrote.
In October, Aidala said the case would probably go to trial, but he would likely listen to any plea agreement offered by the prosecution.