New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

February 26, 2013

Falling Like a House of Cards: Resisting Arrest Dismissed as a Result of Legally Insufficient Claims of Disorderly Conduct

One of the more common ways the police and prosecutors can amplify an otherwise insignificant event is by alleging, and ultimately arresting a person for, Resisting Arrest (New York Penal Law 205.30) or Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 195.05). That is not to say that these crimes are not legitimate offenses and prosecutions are not warranted, but that the conduct for which a person is accused may not based on sound law. To be clear, an arrest for NY PL 205.30, for example, can be established with an accused merely pushing away and refusing to place his or her hands where they can be handcuffed. Despite what an “average” person may believe, to commit Resisting Arrest, one need not become violent or cause injury to an officer. However, before the crime of Resisting Arrest can happen, the reason for that arrest must be lawful. Simply, you cannot be convicted of Resisting Arrest if your underlying conduct is lawful. It is black letter law that “[i]f force is necessary to prevent an unlawful arrest, then force may be employed…” See People v. Cherry, 307 NY 308, 311, (1954) (Having said that, one should not violently or physically oppose the police because one believes one’s conduct is lawful. The courts, not the accused or the police, ultimately make the decision as to the legality of an arrest).

Although I have written on this topic multiple times (a search for “Resisting Arrest,” “205.30” and following the link above will reveal more content), a recent decision once again affirms the above rule. In People v. Coley 2013 NY Slip Op 50167 – NY: County Court, Criminal Court 2013, the defendant was accused of Disorderly Conduct in violation of New York Penal Law 240.20 by standing “in the middle of the above location, a public sidewalk, impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic.” After attempting to issue the defendant a summons for his failure to leave the location, the defendant could not produce any identification. The police attempted to handcuff the defendant who “flailed his arms and twisted his body.”

February 7, 2013

Limiting the a New York Police Officer’s Right to Inquire about Weapon Possession in a Vehicle: People v. Garcia

by Jeremy Saland

There is no denying that armed offenses and mere weapon possession are some of the most serious crimes in the New York Penal Law. Its equally clear that police officers in New York should be able to protect themselves from potential danger when they stop a person who committed a crime or may be perpetrating a New York gun crime. An interesting question, however, is when a police officer can make an inquiry and ask a passenger or driver of a vehicle if he or she has a weapon such as a firearm, revolver, gun, gravity knife or switchblade. A recent decision by the top court in New York, the Court of Appeals, clearly explains the rule when this question can be asked. Whether you are a New York criminal lawyer, Assistant District Attorney or judge in a county, criminal or local court, People v. Garcia, No. 205, NYLJ 1202581900488, at *1 (Ct. of App., Decided December 18, 2012), is a critical case to read and fully understand.

In the words of the Court, Garcia’s appeal asked the judges to “determine whether a police officer may, without founded suspicion for the inquiry, ask the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle if they possess any weapons..” There, the police pulled over the defendants’ vehicle because of a nonworking headlight. In addition to Garcia, the driver, four other people were in the car. The three backseat passengers looked nervous, “were a little furtive,” kept “looking behind,” and “stiffened up.” Asked for his license and registration, Garcia complied. Shortly thereafter, the officers asked if anyone possessed a weapon at which time one of the passengers admitted to possessing a knife. After ordering everyone from the vehicle, what appeared to be a firearm (it was an air pistol) was found wedged between a seat (it was visible with a flashlight). After waiving his rights to an attorney, Garcia admitted the air gun was his pistol.

February 3, 2013

Circumstantial Proof for a NY DWI Arrest: Recent Appellate Decision Favorable to Prosecutors

by Jeremy Saland

Every year New York DWI attorneys and DUI lawyers find themselves representing clients accused of drunk driving and Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 crimes that are re-defined by new criminal statutes or legal decisions. For example, Aggravated DWI in New York State is a crime that enhances penalties and did not exist years ago. Further, while portable “brathalyzer” tests were often not admissible at trial years ago, many courts are allowing prosecutors from New York City and Westchester County to municipalities and jurisdictions in Western New York and Upstate to introduce the field test BAC results with proper foundation.

One of the areas of law that always seems to expand with renewed analysis by local, county and appellate courts concerns the “operation” or “operating” terminology in VTL 1192 arrests. First, courts often address whether one must be actually driving to be operating (one does not) and second, if a defendant is not seen operating the vehicle how prosecutors can establish a drunk driving or driving while intoxicated crime circumstantially. A case right on point, and a very recent appellate decision, People v. Shaffer, 943 NYS2d 672 [3rd Dept. 2012], examined these issues. In Shaffer, a State Trooper observed the defendant sitting on his motorcycle. Although the motorcycle was not running, the defendant was wearing a helmet and facing the wrong way down a one way street. Ultimately arresting the defendant for violating VTL 1192.2 and VTL 1192.3, the Appellate Court found that there was both probable cause to arrest the defendant and it was of nominal consequence that the officers did not actually observe the defendant driving or operating the bike. Testimony at trial revealed, as mentioned above, that the defendant sat upon his motorcycle facing the wrong way, helmet on his head, kick stand up and keys in the ignition. Although the defendant’s motorcycle was not running, the defendant admitted to driving it moments before. More specifically, he stated he travelled about fifty yards down the one way road (the correct direct), realized he had gone the wrong way and turned around to figure things out. When taking into consideration that the officers observed the “standard” indicia of intoxication – watery and blood shot eyes, slurred speech and the smell of alcohol – along with the fact that the defendant was astride his motorcycle with the key in the ignition and kickstand up, admitted to driving and failed field sobriety tests, probable cause was certainly in place to arrest the defendant. The greater (or at least equally important) question was whether this evidence, if credible, was enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply, the answer here was yes. Even without direct knowledge of operation, the circumstantial evidence was very strong and by itself can form the basis of a DWI or DUI conviction.

January 27, 2013

NY DWI Laws: Can You Be Arrested & Convicted of Drunk Driving in New York Without Being in Your Vehicle

by Jeremy Saland

While nobody wants to find themselves as the subject of a New York DWI or DUI arrest, I don’t think anyone could legitimately argue that New York drunk driving laws are firm, serious and potentially devastating for a good reason. As a New York DWI lawyer and DUI attorney as well as a former Manhattan prosecutor assigned to the DWI Unit, I have seen some ugly cases where terrible accidents resulted from driving while intoxicated. Simply, New York VTL 1192 and its various subsections serve a very legitimate purpose in protecting the public.

With the understanding that the laws to protect our roads serve a tremendous purpose, one should not ignore or disregard the fact that people are accused of driving drunk when they may not be remotely intoxicate or impaired. Even assuming there is consumption of alcohol, that consumption may not rise to a criminal level. Regardless of your reason to challenge an arrest for DWI, police must act properly and you have the ability to exercise your rights and protect the same. Was there sufficient probable cause for the police to stop you? Was the intoxilizer or chemical test conducted wrongfully or was the machine not in proper working order? Despite the contention of the police that you failed a field sobriety test, was his or her opinion skewed or is there a non-alcohol related reason why you could not keep your balance? While the following case did not end up favorable to the defendant, can an argument be made that where the police do not find you in your vehicle or your vehicle is not moving (driving), there is not enough sufficient evidence to find you guilty of DWI?

January 22, 2013

Long Island Dentist Arrested for Reckless Endangerment: Is Intoxication Automatic Proof of Recklessness during any Medical Type Procedure

by Jeremy Saland

While the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office will not be resolving the age old question of whether a dentist is in fact a “doctor” (I do not want to be accused of being an antidentite by-the-way), DA Thomas J. Spota’s Herculoids (a little homage to Hana Barbara, folks), will soon be addressing whether a dentist can be criminally reckless if he or she performs procedures on a patient while intoxicated. According to reports, police arrested Robert B. Garelick, a Lindenhurst dentist, for Second Degree Reckless Endangerment (New York Penal Law 120.20) after he was accused of this exact conduct.

An “A” misdemeanor, Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree is punishable by a year in jail. You are guilty of NY PL 120.20 if you recklessly engage in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. To be clear, your conduct is not sufficient if it “may” or can “possibly” cause any type of injury, but creates a substantial risk of a physical injury that is legally classified as serious.

January 22, 2013

Marijuana as Prison Contraband: Who Knew Marihuana was so Dangerous?

by Jeremy Saland

The vast majority of those involved in New York’s criminal justice system, from the officers serving the NYPD and Assistant District Attorneys to judges and criminal defense lawyers, would likely not place marijuana (“marihuana” in the New York Penal Code) in the same realm of contraband such as heroin, cocaine and other controlled substances. While there certainly could be many vigorous debates on the legalization of marijuana, the bottom line is that possessing certain aggregated quantities or possessing any amount of marihuana in public is a crime. The question that arises in some circumstances, however, is not whether possession is illegal, but how dangerous that possession of marijuana can be.

Although the debate over marijuana’s dangers makes for great dinnertime conversations, “danger” or “dangerous” is not an element of Criminal Possession of Marihuana. That’s right. Prosecutors need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Green Leaf is dangerous in any capacity. That is not to say, however, that “danger” is not always irrelevant. When marihuana possession is the central evidence or underlying criminal activity in an arrest for Promoting Prison Contraband, the degree of “danger” is critical.

January 8, 2013

Arrests for Marijuana Possession in New York: Understanding the Difference Between a Criminal and Non-Criminal Offense

by Jeremy Saland

Although wrongfully classified by many people as a narcotic drug crime, arrests in New York City and throughout the State of New York for possession of a marijuana (or marihuana as it is referred to in the New York Penal Law) are a distinct and separate category of crime. Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance crimes, unlike Criminal and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, are much more broad as they include an enormous spectrum of drugs ranging from cocaine to heroin and more “trendy” contraband such as ecstasy. Regardless of the drug, if you possess one of these substances you would be charged with Seventh Degree Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance (New York Penal Law 220.03) as long as you lacked the intent to sell the substance and the weight was not classified as felonious. It makes no difference if the drug is in your hand and open to public view or buried in your pocket. Just ask any person arrested outside a Phish concert at MSG in Manhattan or at a Disco Biscuits concert right around the corner.

Unlike controlled substances, marihuana crimes in New York (or more correctly the crimes for which you are arrested and charged) relate directly to how you possess the contraband.Obviously, weight is relevant when ascertaining if the crime is a felony or misdemeanor, but the vast majority of offenses are defined by how the marijuana is possessed.

December 30, 2012

Stealing the Identity of a Non-Existant Person in New York: Understanding New York’s Identity Theft Statute (NY PL Article 190)

by Jeremy Saland

If not the fastest growing crime, Identity Theft is exploding in New York at a pace that is equal to or greater than almost all other offenses. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who was one of the original members of the first Identity Theft Unit and as a New York criminal lawyer who represents clients accused of New York Penal Law sections 190.78, 190.79 and 190.80, prosecutors are becoming as creative in investigating New York Identity Theft crimes as the accused are alleged to perpetrate the offenses.

As an Assistant District Attorney, I spearheaded an investigation into a large scale Identity Theft ring that involved individuals giving others permission to “steal” their identities for the benefit of third parties. An interesting theory not clearly addressed in the New York Penal Law, the defense attorneys who represented the accused did not challenge the indictment on the grounds that the evidence did not support Identity Theft in the First Degree. Years later, a similar, yet different, issue is now before the court. That is, can you steal the identity of a person who does not exist? People v. Debranche, 2012 NY Slip Op 22359, Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, attempts to answer this question.

December 24, 2012

Tinted Windows Defense: Challenging an Arrest and the “Fruits” of a Potentially Unlawful Search

by Jeremy Saland

Those who have never been accused of a crime often fail to recognize the value or importance of the criminal defense lawyer to the justice system. Some even have pretty nasty things to say about the defense bar. Having said that, when the police wrongfully arrest a person who may have not committed a crime, people are mortified. Sadly there is a disconnect. But for the advocacy of a criminal lawyer, the abuse, fraud or simple and honest mistake on the part of law enforcement may have gone unnoticed. People v. Wilfegher Dumay, 2012KN024855, NYLJ 1202575279850, at *1 (Crim., KI, Decided October 4, 2012), exemplifies these issues and the importance of a criminal lawyer who wants to do more than merely attempt to work out a “deal.”

In Dumay, the defendant was charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree (VTL 511.1) an unclassified misdemeanor. In sort, the defendant was allegedly driving with a suspended license. The defendant argued first that there was no reasonable suspicion to stop Dumay’s car. Alternatively, the defendant sought a hearing (often called a “Dunaway Hearing”) to challenge the probable cause to stop the defendant’s vehicle and suppress the evidence obtained as a result of an illegal stop and search. More specifically, the DMV abstract or record of the defendant’s suspension. Although the court denied to motion to dismiss, for the reasons stated below the court granted the hearing to determine whether or not probable cause existed to stop and arrest the defendant.

December 17, 2012

Resisting Arrest: The Necessity of an Authorized Arrest & the Right to Object to Unlawful Police Conduct

by Jeremy Saland

One of the most frustrating crimes that New York criminal lawyers must defend against is the crime of Resisting Arrest. Although New York Penal Law 205.30 is not as serious a crime as a felony offense, it is frustrating because for every legitimate Resisting Arrest charge that is prosecuted, there are also many violations of NY PL 205.30 that do no not warrant prosecution. For example, if someone is being disorderly or even legally confrontational with the police, a police officer may attempt to arrest that person. Should that person pull his or her arm away while the police try to handcuff him or her, the officer may decide to elevate a “non-case” into a misdemeanor. To be clear, I am in no way insinuating that the police charge this crime wrongfully with regularity, but one would be naive to think that violations of NY PL 205.30 are always based in legal arrests or based upon the spirit of the statute.

What each and every defendant and criminal lawyer must understand about the crime of Resisting Arrest is that a person is guilty of this crime only if he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. A critical component of any Resisting Arrest arrest (that sounds kind of funny, doesn’t it?!) is that the actions not only be intentional and as a means to prevent a police officer from making an arrest, but the arrest must be an authorized one. If it is not authorized, then the arrest for violating New York Penal Law 205.30 is not valid.