New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

January 31, 2012

NY DMV Clerk Arrested For Fraudulently Issuing Drivers Licenses to Individuals Including Convicted Felon

It is almost as if he is shooting fish in a barrel. Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., has made another big splash announcing the arrest and indictment of a New York State Department of Motor Vehicle’s (“DMV”) clerk who is alleged to have unlawfully processed at least three drivers license applications. It is claimed by prosecutors, who are understandably concerned about this type of conduct, that one of the individuals who fraudulently obtained a license had previously been convicted of a felony and deported from the United States. Clarence Jenkins, the DMV clerk indicted for the alleged scheme, is charged with three counts each of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, a class D felony, Issuing a False Certificate, a class E felony, and Official Misconduct, a class A misdemeanor. If convicted, the accused faces up to seven, four and one year in custody on each respective offense.

In acknowledging the danger of illegally issuing New York State drivers licenses to those who are not entitled to them, DA Vance stated “… [Jenkins] may have jeopardized public safety.” Whether as a New York criminal lawyer I agree with the prosecution’s ultimate determination as to how to handle the case and seek a potential plea or sentence, DA Vance is certainly correct in his assertion. Unlike a minor attempting to get a license for the purpose of going to a bar or purchasing alcohol, fraud such as that alleged here has the potential for grave danger. Fortunately, it does not appear from the press release that this is the case.

January 26, 2012

Manhattan DA Investigating Ray Kelly’s Son, New York City Newsman Greg Kelly, for Rape

by Jeremy Saland

Rookie term Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., has found himself in a position that is anything but envious. According to multiple reports, DA Vance’s main referral source for business, New York City Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly, is also the father of an accused rapist. Greg Kelly, the co-host of Fox 5’s “Good Day New York,” is alleged to have raped a woman this past October in Manhattan. Although it is claimed that the alleged victim’s boyfriend initially confronted Commissioner Kelly about his son’s unwanted sexual conduct with his roughly thirty-year old girlfriend, the investigation was properly turned over to the District Attorney’s Office to ensure a fair and honest investigation by an agency with no ties to Greg Kelly. Far from atypical and likely the best decision for the investigation into the newsman’s guilt or innocence, Assistant District Attorney’s in the Sex Crimes Bureau will determine how and if the case will proceed to an arrest or indictment.

Obviously, Greg Kelly, through his counsel, strenuously denies the wrongdoing. Although any allegation of a sex crime is potentially debilitating and an embarrassing stigma, should the accused be convicted of a rape crime in New York the actual punishment is much worse than any public shame. While the manner in which Greg Kelly is accused of raping the complainant is not yet clear, there are generally three degrees of this crime. Regardless of the degree, rape must include penetration, aka “sexual intercourse,” even if slight.

January 25, 2012

New York DWI Arrests & Trials: New York City Judge Allows Portable Breath Tests Results at Drunk Driving (DUI)Trial

by Jeremy Saland

Facing a Drunk Driving, DUI or DWI criminal arrest in New York can be an extremely frightening experience for any individual especially for an accused who does not have an experienced New York DWI lawyer at their side. Whether one is arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx or out in the counties of Westchester or Rockland, the consequences of a conviction can be severe and life-changing. Therefore, when facing any of the DWI crimes found under NY Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) 1192, it is extremely important to understand your legal rights so that you can mount the best possible defense. In this blog post I want to explore whether a New York court will allow the prosecution to utilize the results from a portable breathalyzer or intoxilyzer administered by the arresting officer during an initial stop at a DWI trial.

A recently decided New York County (Manhattan) criminal case, took up this exact legal issue. In People v. Jones, 2010NY061507, NYLJ 1202504258080, at *1 (Crim., NY Decided July 18, 2011) the defendant, Kareem Jones, was tried before a jury on charges of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to NY VTL1192(3) (also called “Common Law DWI”) and Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) pursuant to NY VTL 1192(1). As you might expect, one is guilty of DWI when they operate a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition. If convicted the defendant can face up to one year in jail, a suspension of their license, fines, and probation for three years. Further, the law requires that an interlock device be placed on the convicted’s vehicle. On the other hand, one is guilty of DWAI if they operate a motor vehicle while impaired by the consumption of alcohol. DWAI is an infraction and is often charged as a lesser offense of the other DWI crimes listed under VTL 1192.

January 20, 2012

When Police Conduct a Post Arrest Search Without an Arrest: Challenging Illegal Searches in New York

by Jeremy Saland

You received a summons for having an open container of beer somewhere in New York City either on the streets of Brooklyn or Manhattan. The police issued you a pink summons and you believed you were on your way to a slap on the wrist. However, to your surprise, you, in the words of the police, are “searched incident to your lawful arrest” where they find cocaine, a gravity knife or some other contraband. Originally given merely a pink ticket, you are arrested and put through the system or issued a Desk Appearance Ticket for violating New York Penal Law 220.03 or New York Penal Law 265.01. Compounding matters, you made some statements as too the drugs or weapon you are alleged to possess. Whether it came in the form of a New York Desk Appearance Ticket or you were sent to Central Booking, you now need a criminal lawyer to help fight the misdemeanor charge you face. How did this simple “nothing” case evolve into something so serious…

While rarely anything in the practice of New York criminal law is easy and straightforward, a recent decision from an Appellate Court in Western New York has given a little extra support to New York criminal defense attorneys defending clients in scenarios such as the one mentioned above. In People v Kalikow, 2011 NY Slip Op 09452 Decided on December 23, 2011 Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the defendant had received an appearance ticket for having an open container of alcohol. This was a violation of a local municipal ordinance. Upon issuing the appearance ticket, the defendant was ultimately searched and he made damaging statements. What specifically the police recovered and what the defendant actually said is irrelevant. In Kalikow, the issue was whether the conduct of the police was legal (the search) and, if not, whether the evidence recovered could be used against the accused at trial.

January 19, 2012

Prosecuting a Domestic Assault Case without a Victim: The Excited Utterance Rule in New York

by Jeremy Saland

The common perception is that most of the work of a New York criminal attorney comes in zealously representing their clients at trial while trying to enter a reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury or a judge. While that is certainly a role played by criminal attorneys in New York, the truth is that many times experienced New York criminal lawyers raise challenges to a case at a much earlier stage. For instance, a criminal attorney may challenge the arrest itself as improper, or the sufficiency of the charges brought by the Assistant District Attorney. As most of you know, the police standard for making a proper arrest is probable cause. Furthermore, in New York an Assistant District Attorney (the prosecutor) must present non-hearsay factual allegations (e.g. a victim’s account, or a witness’ statement, or an arresting officers’ observations) that provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed each element of the offense being charged. It is important to note that the level of proof required at a stage prior to trial (to properly charge a defendant) is much lower than the reasonable doubt standard required to convict a defendant.

I presented the above background because I want to examine a recent New York criminal case, People v. Jamel Harris, 2011QN011459, NYLJ 1202503770549 at *1 (Crim., QU, Decided July 13, 2011), in which the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the charges brought against him because he believed they were based on uncorroborated hearsay. Mr. Harris, the defendant, was charged with Assault in the Third Degree, pursuant to NY PL 120.00(1), Harassment in the Second Degree pursuant to NY PL 240.26(1), Petit Larceny pursuant to NY PL 155.25 and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree NY PL 165.40. A person is guilty of Assault in the Third Degree if he intended to, and did cause, physical injury to another person. Petit Larceny is when you steal property worth $1000 or less. Harassment in the Second Degree is established if the prosecution could show that the defendant was intending to annoy, alarm, or harass the victim by subjecting that person to physical conduct. And lastly, a person is guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property if he/she knowingly possesses stolen property with the intent to benefit him/herself.

January 16, 2012

Criminal Contempt in New York: Refusal to Testify & Its Ramifications in a Criminal Case

by Jeremy Saland

In criminal trials in the state of New York, the People (a.k.a. the prosecution) bear the burden of proving that the defendant has committed the charged offense beyond any reasonable doubt. Obviously, the role of the criminal lawyer in New York is to controvert, challenge and poke holes in People’s case. Many times in criminal trials the strongest evidence of guilt in the prosecution’s arsenal is the direct testimony of a witness. Therefore the District Attorney’s Offices, whether it be one of the five borough/counties– Manhattan, Brooklyn/Kings, the Bronx, Staten Island/Richmond, or Queens– or surrounding counties– Westchester or Rockland — must be empowered to compel these “material witnesses” to testify. A subpoena is that legal tool, which empowers the State of New York to compel testimony by a witness. Of course, even if you’ve been subpoenaed to testify in a New York criminal trial, you don’t necessarily have to testify.

Most of us don’t need a NY criminal defense attorney to tell us what the Fifth Amendment is, but many times people do confuse the scope of the Amendment. The Fifth Amendment only protects individuals from self-incrimination. That is, if your boyfriend was charged with burglary and you are subpoenaed to testify as to his whereabouts on the night in question, but you had nothing to do with the burglary and your truthful testimony will in no way incriminate (admit guilt of a crime) you, then you can potentially be compelled to testify.

January 11, 2012

When Can the Police Question & Arrest You for a DWI or DUI in New York: A Criminal Lawyer Analysis

by Jeremy Saland

Sometimes, as a criminal defense attorney in New York, the best way to zealously represent your client against criminal charges is to challenge the admissibility of evidence before the trial begins. This strategy can be particularly effective when a defendant faces any one of the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charges listed under NY Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) 1192. It is important to remember that no matter its weight or strength, if the evidence (whether it be contraband found on a defendant or statements made by him/her) was not obtained by legal means by the police, then it will not be admissible in a criminal court. That is, if an individual’s Constitutional rights were violated in the apprehension of evidence, whether it be during a New York DWI, DUI or other criminal arrest, then it will be excluded. A recent case in the Kings (Brooklyn) County Criminal Court, People v. Licelle Lovelle, 2010 KN068463 NYLJ 1202516648515, at *1 (Sup., KI, Decided September 14, 2011) raised some very interesting legal issues regarding the admissibility of evidence in a DWI case. Whether or not this case is useful in your tool box when defending against a drunk driving arrest is something worth exploring with your criminal lawyer.

Ms. Lovelle was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol Or Drugs and other DWI charges pursuant to VTL 1192 including Driving While Impaired – VTL 1192.1, Driving While Intoxicated Per Se – VTL 1192.2, and “Common Law DWI” – VTL 1192.3. The defendant’s criminal lawyer called for a suppression hearing arguing that the arresting officer violated the defendant’s Constitutional rights while obtaining evidence. Specifically the defense argued that Lovelle’s 5th Amendment rights were violated because the officer took statements without issuing proper Miranda warnings.

January 6, 2012

Prosecuting a Case of Third Degree Assault (NY PL 120.00) without a Victim: The Excited Utterance Rule in New York

by Jeremy Saland

As a New York criminal attorney who works on behalf of clients in the criminal trial courts throughout the New York City area–from the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan into the counties of Westchester and Rockland– I pick up on the strategies employed by the respective District Attorney’s Office. Equally important, having served as a Manhattan prosecutor for over seven years, I witnessed first hand Assistant District Attorneys pursuing these strategies. As I also saw them, I’ve noticed a trend amongst Assistant District Attorney’s trying to corroborate the allegations in a complaint and further cases even where a complainant is not cooperative. A recent case, The People v. Joseph Valentine, 2009KN083896, NYLJ 1202516492758, at *1(Criml, KI. Decided September 8, 2011) is a great illustration of this trend and thus is a case worth examining in this blog.

Mr. Valentine was charged with Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to NY PL 120.00(1), Menacing in the Third Degree pursuant to NY PL 120.15, Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation (choking) pursuant to NY PL 121.11(a), and Harassment in the Second Degree pursuant to NY PL 240.26(1). The arresting officer had responded to a “radio-run” (911 call) for a family dispute. The complainant, Ms. Ingram, who is the defendant’s girlfriend, was outside of the house hysterically crying and explained to the officer that Mr. Valentine had choked her.

January 2, 2012

Arrested for Drug Possession in New York: Criminal Lawyer Analysis of Overzealous Police Searches

by Jeremy Saland

Getting caught with illegal drugs in New York can be a frightening affair and one which certainly requires the assistance of an experienced criminal lawyer. Whether in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Brooklyn, Assistant District Attorneys and judges can (and often do) stick to the book. Sometimes defending yourself against a misdemeanor or felony charged of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance can seem like an uphill battle. If you had the drugs – heroin, cocaine, etc., on your person or in your car, then there is nothing you can do right? Well, not exactly. In fact, not at all. Remember that the New York Constitution has strict guidelines regarding the ways in which NYPD officers can obtain evidence. New York has adopted standards arguably at least equal to and if not more protective of individual liberty then the standards set by federal cases. In this blog post, through the examination of a recent Bronx criminal case- People v. Sincere Pinckney, 75334C-10, NYLJ 1202514446063, at *1 (Sup., BX, Decided September 9, 2011)- I will elucidate (great word, huh?) some of the basic framework for measuring the legality of the intrusiveness of a police action in New York. The case provides a great illustration of circumstances under which evidence will be suppressed because it was unlawfully obtained in violation of the NY Constitution and the 4th Amendment.

In People v. Sincere Pinckney, the defendant was charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree pursuant to VTL 511.1(a), Operating a Motor Vehicle Without a License pursuant to VTL 509.1, and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana pursuant to NY PL 221.05. It should be noted that in New York marijuana related offenses are specifically carved out from and identified as separate from Controlled Substances crimes (possession of cocaine or heroin, for example) found in Article 220. Unlawful Possession of Marijuana is actually not even a “crime,” (Criminal Possession of Marijuana is a crime) but rather a violation. Nonetheless, although Pinckney involves a marijuana charge, the standard for what constitutes an unreasonable police intrusion resulting in the suppression of evidence will apply to more serious contraband cases (e.g. possession of cocaine or ecstacy).

December 29, 2011

Tennessee Woman Arrested for Possessing & “Checking” Loaded Firearm at Ground Zero: Analysis of NY PL 265.03 & Its Strict Enforcement

by Jeremy Saland

To do the “right thing” almost always takes courage. The path of least resistance it is not. In New York City, where gun crime seems to have been relatively rampant over the past year recently culminating in the tragic death of New York City Police Officer Peter Figoski, District Attorneys are frothing at the mouth with every new firearm arrest. While often time zealous prosecution is more than reasonable in gun and violent crime cases, other times law enforcement in New York City can’t see the forest from the trees. For the sake of Meredith Graves, a nurse from Tennessee who “checked” her legally owned handgun with the police at Ground Zero, let’s hope that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. not only can see this recent gun possession arrest for what it truly is – an honest mistake about New York laws – but also ignores the general guidelines he and his office have imposed on weapon cases.

Before addressing the allegations against Ms. Graves, one must understand and have a grasp on New York’s criminal statutes involving the possession of firearms without a permit. According to New York Penal Law 265.03(3), you are guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (CPW 2) if and when you possess a loaded firearm (a pistol, revolver, handgun, etc.) that is both loaded and outside your home or place of business and you do so without a permit. There are two critical concepts or rules that apply to these cases. First, you need not possess any intent to use that firearm unlawfully or against another person. Second, case law establishes that “loaded,” in the eyes of the court, is far more liberal than its literal meaning. In fact, if the firearm is capable of being loaded and the ammunition is locked in a carrying case with your gun (but not physically in it), then that gun is considered loaded for prosecution purposes. One last, but unavoidable point. As a “C” violent felony, NY PL 265.03 is punishable by a mandatory minimum of three and one half years in prison for a person without absolutely no criminal history. Compounding matters, a judge could sentence a defendant to as many as fifteen years in custody.